Adam Lisk v. Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd., 2017 HRTO 1312

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Adam Lisk Applicant

-and-

Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Eban Bayefsky Date: October 5, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1312 Indexed as: Lisk v. Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.

Written Submissions

Adam Lisk, Applicant Self-represented

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that he was subjected to unfair treatment arising from, and/or resulting in, his suffering from anxiety and depression and that the respondent was seeking his resignation because he was working a reduced shift.

3On August 15, 2017 (prior to the respondent filing a Response to the Application), the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) seeking to amend the Application to add the ground of reprisal, as well as the following remedies:

(i) general damages for pain and suffering, loss of dignity, feelings and self-respect - $10,000.00

(ii) general damages for loss of income (based on reprisal) – amount to be disclosed at the hearing

(iii) special damages for tuition reimbursement (for the amount the applicant would have received had the respondent not discriminated against and/or terminated him) - $1,679.61

4The applicant filed a Statement of Delivery (Form 23) with the Tribunal confirming that he delivered his RFOP to the respondent by email. The respondent filed a Response, in part addressing the applicant’s termination, but did not file a Response to the applicant’s RFOP or address it in its Response.

Decision

5In 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; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.

6Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The amendments are an extension of, and consistent with, the initial Application filed by the applicant, and take into account that his employment with the respondent has since been terminated. The request to amend was made very early in the process and I see no prejudice to the respondent, particularly given that the respondent did not address the applicant’s request in its Response.

Order

7For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:

a. the request to amend the Application is granted;

b. the Application is amended to include the ground of reprisal and the reprisal allegation contained in his RFOP, as well as the following remedies:

(i) monetary compensation for pain and suffering, loss of dignity, feelings and self-respect - $10,000.00

(ii) monetary compensation for loss of income, to be advised

(iii) monetary compensation for tuition reimbursement - $1,679.61;

c. the respondent may file an amended Response within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision;

d. the applicant may file a Reply within 14 days of receiving an amended Response, if any.

8I am not seized.