Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc., 2016 HRTO 905

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anton Bonnici on behalf of Emy Bonnici

Applicant

-and-

Loblaws Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: July 11, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 905 Indexed as: Bonnici v. Loblaws Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anton Bonnici on behalf of Emy Bonnici, Applicants

Self-represented

1This Application is currently being scheduled for a hearing. This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application against the respondent, Loblaws Inc.

2The applicant and his brother filed two Applications alleging discrimination against Emy Bonnici because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended. In Interim Decision, 2015 HRTO 1701, I dismissed all the allegations in the two Applications except for one allegation in the Application against Emy Bonnici’s union and one allegation in this Application against Loblaws Inc. The sole allegation that is proceeding against Loblaws Inc. is the allegation that Loblaws Inc. discriminated against Emy Bonnici by assigning him work that exceeded his disability-related restrictions following the October 16, 2013 Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties.

Applicant’s Request to Amend the Application

3The applicant made a request to amend the Application which appears to allege that Loblaws discriminated against Emy Bonnici with respect to certain discriminatory payments. The respondent did not respond to the applicant’s request and the time for doing so has passed.

4The allegation the applicant is seeking to add to the Application appears to be an allegation that the applicant made at the preliminary hearing held in this matter. It was dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect of success in terms of the applicant being able to establish a link between the allegedly discriminatory payments and Emy Bonnici’s disability. The applicant has now filed a document setting out Emy Bonnici’s payment history. In my view, the allegation that the applicant is seeking to add is one that has already been dismissed. I do not consider it appropriate to permit any requests to amend the Application at this stage of proceedings. As well, there is nothing in the documents sent by the applicant, beyond his own assertions, that can reasonably establish the necessary link between any insufficient payments and Emy Bonnici’s disability.

Order

5For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to amend the Application is denied.

6This Application is currently being scheduled for a hearing on the one allegation that the Tribunal did not dismiss following the preliminary hearing held in this matter. The Registrar will advise the parties of the date of the hearing once it is scheduled. The Notice of Hearing in this matter will set out the deadline for the disclosure and filing of documents by the parties. Neither party is permitted to file any documents before these disclosure deadlines. To be more specific, the applicant is not permitted to file any documents before the disclosure deadline set out in the Notice of Hearing.