Tanny v. Coventry Connections Inc., 2016 HRTO 789

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Erica Tanny

Applicant

-and-

Coventry Connections Inc. o/a Blue Line Taxi

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Date: June 9, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 789
Indexed as: Tanny v Coventry Connections Inc.

APPEARANCES

Erica Tanny, Applicant Self-represented,

Coventry Connections Inc., o/a Blue Line Taxi, Respondent Porter Heffernan, Counsel

1The hearing of this Application commenced on June 6 and 7 in Ottawa but was not completed. Two further hearing days will be scheduled.

Request to Amend

2In her Application, the applicant sought $1 in monetary compensation as well as a non-monetary remedy and a number of public interest remedies. On May 27, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking, among other things, to amend her Application to claim $25,000 as monetary compensation for injury to her dignity and self-respect.

3The respondent opposes the Request, and argues that it is prejudiced by the late Request which significantly changes the nature of the Application and the relief sought. The respondent further argues that if the request is granted, it allowed to amend its Response and to submit additional evidence.

4In 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 any prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

5I have considered the factors above and grant the applicant’s request to amend the remedy sought in her Application. While the applicant’s Request was brought very late in the process, the Tribunal has allowed amendments to remedial claims up to the start of a hearing. See, for example, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390 and Loney v. Combusco Enterprises, 2011 HRTO 1050. Any potential prejudice to the respondent is addressed by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response.

6Granting the Request is not a determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding these issues.

ORDER

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

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

b. The respondent may deliver to the applicant and file an amended Response addressing the amended remedial claim within 28 days from the date of this Interim Decision;

c. If the applicant wishes to Reply to the respondent’s amended Response, she must deliver and file an amended Reply within 14 days of receipt the amended Response.