Sheldon v. St. Marys Ford Sales, Ltd., 2016 HRTO 629

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lisa Sheldon

Applicant

-and-

St. Marys Ford Sales, Ltd., Robert Cade and Kipp Edwards

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: May 10, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 629
Indexed as: Sheldon v. St. Marys Ford Sales, Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lisa Sheldon, Applicant
Brian Daly, Counsel

St. Marys Ford Sales, Ltd. and Kipp Edwards, Respondents
Russell Mitchell, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) that requests that she be permitted to amend her Application to include details with respect to the circumstances surrounding her leaving the workplace in March, 2016 and to include a request for wage loss from March 31, 2016 onward.

2There is no hearing date yet set in this matter.

3The applicant attached her amended Application to her Request.

4The respondents, St. Marys Ford Sales, Ltd. and Kipp Edwards, consent to the amendments. These respondents also attached their amended Response to their Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

5The respondent, Robert Cade, did not provide a Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

6The requested amendments are permitted in accordance with the test in Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven, 2009 HRTO 926, by “taking into account the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the amendment and the absence of any apparent prejudice.”

7There is no prejudice to the respondents, St. Marys Ford Sales, Ltd. and Kipp Edwards, because they consent to the amendments. In addition, there is no hearing date yet set and the proceedings are at an early stage. Although the respondent, Robert Cade, did not respond to the applicant’s Request, I find that the requested amendments also would not prejudice him given that they are not extensive and there is not yet any hearing date set.

8The Tribunal permits the amendments without any determination by the Tribunal as to the appropriateness of the additional remedy sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding this issue.

order and next steps

9The Tribunal orders:

a. the applicant’s request to amend her Application is granted;

b. the applicant’s amended Application shall be in the form attached to her Request, and the applicant need not file another;

c. the amended Response of the respondents, St. Mary’s Ford Sales, Ltd. and Kipp Edwards shall be in the form attached to their Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings, and they need not file another; and

d. within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent, Robert Cade, shall deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal along with a Form 23 Statement of Delivery, his amended Response, if any.

10I am not seized.