Ellis v. Autism Ontario, 2017 HRTO 1269

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jaclyn Ellis

Applicant

-and-

Autism Ontario and Autism Ontario London Chapter

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best

Date: September 27, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1269

Indexed as: Ellis v. Autism Ontario

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jaclyn Ellis, Applicant

Michelle Mulgrave, Counsel

1This Application was filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A hearing is scheduled for November 6 and 7, 2017 in London, and the filing and exchange of documents and witness statements is due on October 2, 2017 under Rules 16.2, 16.3 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

2On May 31, 2017, the applicant filed a Request to amend her Application to include an allegation of reprisal, and to increase the remedy sought. The respondents did not file any submissions in response to the May 2017 Request.

3The Tribunal has the discretion to amend an application under Rule 1.7(c) of its Rules of Procedure. The question is whether, in all the circumstances, it would be fair to grant the amendments. The factors generally considered in deciding to exercise this discretion are the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for requesting the amendments, the timing of the request to amend, and the prejudice to the respondent. See Odell v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2001 CanLII 26210 (ON HRT), 2001 CanLII 26210, and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

4In this case, the amendment is with respect to an alleged incident of reprisal that took place in the fall of 2016, after the Application was filed. The respondent was put on notice, in December 2016, that an amendment would be sought. The Request to amend was filed promptly after the Notice of Hearing was issued in May 2017.

5The Request to amend is granted. Though the allegation of reprisal is separate from the allegations raised in the Application, the allegation flows directly from the applicant having pursued her rights. The new allegation was raised well in advance of the hearing, and there is no indication of any prejudice to the respondent in its being addressed at the hearing. The additional remedy sought is for compensation should the allegation of reprisal be substantiated.

6The decision to grant the Request to amend is not, of course, a finding that the allegations are substantiated or that the remedy is appropriate. Such a determination may only be made after hearing any evidence and the full submissions of the parties.

Order

7The applicant’s Request to amend the Application to include an allegation of reprisal, and to increase the remedies sought, is granted.