Ammar Shahzad v. Surendar Jhita, 2016 HRTO 969

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Ammar Shahzad Applicant

-and-

Surendar Jhita Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: July 22, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 969 Indexed as: Shahzad v. Jhita

APPEARANCES

Ammar Shahzad, Applicant Self-represented

Surendar Jhita, Respondent Nikita Rathwell, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of race, place of origin and ethnic origin.

2On March 29, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add monetary compensation to the remedy he requests in the Application. The respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order opposing the request on April 14, 2016. The Tribunal deferred addressing the request pending determination of whether the parties would participate in mediation and whether the Tribunal would grant the respondent’s request for summary hearing.

3The applicant seeks to amend the Application to include monetary compensation of $135,500 for losses he claims to have suffered as a result of the respondent’s alleged breach of his Code rights. The respondent submits that the financial losses the applicant describes have no connection to the applicant’s interactions with the respondent or to any ground of discrimination.

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 the prejudice to the respondent. See, for example, Odell v. TTC, [2001] OHRBID No. 2, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

5Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the remedy sought in his Application. The Tribunal will generally allow requests to amend an applicant’s remedial relief, since the mere fact that a remedy has been requested is no indication that the Tribunal will grant it. This Application is at an early stage of proceedings and I see no prejudice to granting the applicant’s request to amend the remedy sought in his Application. The Tribunal has regularly granted such requests up to the date of the hearing in past decisions. See, for example, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390, and Loney v. Combusco Enterprises, 2011 HRTO 1050.

6This remedial amendment is made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position the respondent may wish to take regarding this issue.

7I am not seized.