Snider v. Emergency Medicine Associates, 2016 HRTO 442

RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patricia Snider

Applicant

-and-

Emergency Medicine Associates (Partnership), London Health Sciences Centre and Melanie Rose

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana

Date: April 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 442

Indexed as: Snider v. Emergency Medicine Associates

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision addresses a number of procedural and preliminary issues.

Request to amend the Application

3The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”), seeking to amend her Application and the remedy sought. The respondents have not filed a Response to the Request and the time for doing so has passed.

4Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:

In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:

c) allow any filing to be amended.

5In determining a request to amend a pleading, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the other party, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 535; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926.

6I have considered these factors and find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s request. The applicant has made her request in a timely manner and the respondents have not opposed the amendment of the Application.

Deferral

7In their Response, Emergency Medicine Associates (Partnership) (“EMA”) and Melanie Rose indicated that the applicant had filed a complaint at the Ministry of Labour (“MOL”) which raises some or all of the facts and issues raised in this Application. They did not seek to defer the Application.

8In delivering the Response to the applicant, the Tribunal erroneously indicated that these respondents were seeking deferral of the Application. I note, however, that the Tribunal may, and routinely does, defer applications on its own motion. The applicant has withdrawn her MOL complaint and provided a letter confirming this. In the circumstances deferral is no longer an issue.

Emergency Medicine Associates

9In its Response EMA advised that its correct legal name is Emergency Medicine Associates of the London Health Sciences Centre.

10The Tribunal will amend the style of cause accordingly unless either the applicant or the respondent London Health Sciences Centre objects in writing within seven days of the date of this decision.

ORDER

11The Tribunal orders:

a. The Request to amend the Application is granted;

b. The respondents may file an amended Response within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

c. The applicant and the corporate respondent may file an objection to the name change of Emergency Medicine Associates (Partnership) within seven days, failing which the Tribunal will amend its records to Emergency Medicine Associates of the London Health Sciences Centre.

12I am not seized of this matter.