Pamela Simpson v. Kingston Dodge Chrysler (1980) Ltd., 2016 HRTO 915

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pamela Simpson

Applicant

-and-

Kingston Dodge Chrysler (1980) Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price Date: July 12, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 915 Indexed as: Simpson v. Kingston Dodge Chrysler (1980) Ltd.

1On June 13, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to amend her Application to include certain particulars of the allegations already contained in her Application. The Request to Amend was filed shortly after the applicant retained counsel to represent her in this matter.

2In its June 28, 2013 response, the respondent does not oppose the applicant’s Request to Amend, provided that the respondent has an opportunity to provide an additional response to the new allegations and subject to the respondent being permitted to raise an objection, at the hearing, that all or part of the Application ought to be dismissed on account of delay. In this regard, the respondent points out that in a May 2016 Interim Decision in this matter, the Tribunal declined to dismiss all or part of the Application on account of delay “at this stage”. The respondent submits that the additional particulars that have recently been provided support its position that some or all of the applicant’s allegations are untimely and that it should be permitted to raise this issue at the hearing.

DECISION

3I find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s Request to Amend the Application on the basis proposed by the respondent. Procedural fairness and natural justice dictate that the respondent should have an opportunity to respond to the detailed particulars the applicant has provided in her Request to Amend. In addition, the respondent is not precluded from raising its timeliness objection based on the additional particulars provided. However, I would remind the parties that, pursuant to Rule 1.7(g) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may decide not to deal with the respondent’s timeliness objection as a preliminary matter.

directions/orders

4If the respondent wishes to file additional written submissions responding to the allegations in Request to Amend, the respondent is directed to deliver such submissions to the applicant and file them with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

5In light of the above, the deadline for the filing and exchange of the parties’ pre-hearing disclosure materials pursuant to Rules 16.2 and 17.1 is hereby extended to August 5, 2016. In my view, requiring the exchange of documents and witness statements by that date should afford the parties sufficient time to prepare for the September 7 and 8, 2016 hearing in Kingston.

6The parties ought to be prepared to make submissions with respect to the respondent’s delay objection at the upcoming hearing, at such time as the Tribunal may direct.