Mitha v. Paladin Security Group, 2016 HRTO 628

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Salima Mitha

Applicant

-and-

Paladin Security Group

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: May 10, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 628

Indexed as: Mitha v. Paladin Security Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Salima Mitha, Applicant

Stuart Rudner, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.

2By Application filed on February 18, 2016, the applicant alleged that she was discriminated against because of sex (pregnancy) contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, in her Application, the applicant set out various incidents which she claims amount to discrimination against her because of her pregnancy and its termination.

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed April 15, 2016, the applicant’s newly retained counsel sought to amend her Application. The RFOP included an amended Application which appears to primarily reframe the same incidents of discrimination included in the Application.

4The respondent did not respond to the RFOP and the time for doing so has passed.

findings

5In determining requests to amend applications, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

6Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. This Application is at a very early stage of proceedings as the respondent has not yet filed a Response. As well, the amendments appear mostly to reframe and provide a legal context to the incidents set out in the initial version of the Application. Therefore, I see no prejudice to granting the applicant’s request to amend her Application.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The applicant’s request to amend her Application is granted. The Application is amended to the version attached to the applicant’s April 15, 2016 RFOP.

b. The respondent must file a Response to the Application no later than 21 days from the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized.