HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Johnathan Stavrou
Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jennifer Khurana
Indexed as: Stavrou v. City of Toronto
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Johnathan Stavrou, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.
2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s requests to amend the Application.
Request to amend the Application
3The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to amend his Application to add the ground of reprisal, and to amend the requested remedies. The applicant filed a second Request seeking to amend his Application in relation to the allegations set out in his Application and to increase the monetary remedies sought to include special damages and several non-monetary remedies.
4The respondents filed their Responses. As the Requests were filed prior to the Application being served, the respondent City of Toronto appears to have addressed the applicant’s proposed amendments in its Response. It does not oppose the Requests. The respondent Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 did not respond to the Requests.
5Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expedition resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended.
6In determining a request to amend a pleading, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including the stage at which the request to amend is made, the nature of the requested amendment, the conduct of the party seeking the amendment, the prejudice to the other party, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Mancebo-Munoz v. NCO Financial Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 535; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926. Further, the Tribunal has regularly granted requests to amend remedies up to the date of the hearing. See, for example, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390, and Loney v. Combusco Enterprises, 2011 HRTO 1050.
7I have considered these factors and find it appropriate to grant the applicant’s requests.
8The hearing is being scheduled and the parties have yet to make any pre-hearing disclosure. I do not find that the amendments will delay these proceedings or cause any undue prejudice to the respondents. The respondent City of Toronto also appears to have already responded to the proposed amendments.
9For the reasons set out above, I grant the applicant’s requests to amend his Application. These amendments are made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought. They are also made without prejudice to any position the respondents may wish to take regarding these allegations or the remedies sought.
ORDER
10The Tribunal orders:
a. The Request to amend the Application is granted. The Application is amended as set out in the Schedules appended to the applicant’s Requests;
b. If the respondents wish to file any additional submissions in response to the amendments, they may do so within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
c. The applicant may file a Reply to the respondents’ amended Response within 21 days of this Interim Decision.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 29st day of August, 2017.
“Signed By”
Jennifer Khurana
Vice-chair