HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jonathan Hannah Applicant
-and-
Gaby’s Place Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard Date: June 29, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 862 Indexed as: Hannah v. Gaby’s Place
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Jonathan Hannah, Applicant Self-represented
Gaby’s Place, Respondent Adela Polacek, Representative
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2This Interim Decision is in response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed by the applicant on May 19, 2016 seeking to amend his Application. The respondent provided written submissions responding to the RFOP on June 21, 2016.
3The applicant’s request to amend the Application is based on additional incidents alleged to have occurred subsequent to his Application. The applicant seeks to add information related to an alleged exchange between his mother and the respondent. He alleges that when his mother contacted the respondent to request the applicant’s record of employment, the respondent said unprofessional things about him, aggravating his mental condition.
4The respondent argues that the record of employment is a completely separate matter, unrelated to the discrimination allegation. It maintains that the owner of the respondent has had no contact with the applicant since his termination. It argues that the employer/employee relationship is over.
5The hearing on the merits of this matter has not been scheduled.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
6Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”.
7In deciding 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 respondents. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.
8I am satisfied that the applicant should be permitted to amend the Application as described in the RFOP. The Tribunal has not scheduled the hearing date with regard to the merits of the Application. In my view there is adequate time for the respondent to address the new allegations raised by the applicant. In addition, the new allegations relate to a request for the applicant’s record of employment and appear to be linked to the employment outlined in the Application. I find that there is no apparent prejudice to the respondent in granting the Request.
order
9For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted to include the facts outlined in the RFOP.
10The respondent may file an amended Response to respond to the amendment within 28 days from the date of this Interim Decision. If the applicant wishes to file a Reply to any amendment made to the Response, he must do so within 14 days of receiving an Amended Response from the respondent.
direction
11The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a one day hearing in this case. Further Directions from the Tribunal with respect to the hearing will be issued in due course.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of June, 2016.
“Signed By”
Josée Bouchard Vice-chair