HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Savannah Burton
Applicant
-and-
Espartel Investments Inc. cob as Ramada Plaza Toronto Hotel
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Burton v. Espartel Investments Inc. cob as Ramada Plaza Toronto Hotel
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Savannah Burton, Applicant
Melissa Hudson, Representative
Espartel Investments Inc. cob as Ramada Plaza Toronto Hotel, Respondent
Meghan Cowan, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability, gender identity and gender expression, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). She sought remedies which included $25,000 financial compensation.
3On August 29, 2017, the applicant sought to amend the Application to increase the financial compensation she seeks by way of remedy to $323,000.
4The respondent filed a Response to the Request. They objected to the amendment, providing submissions regarding why it is the respondent’s position that an award of $323,000 would be excessive if a breach of the Code were to be found to have occurred.
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 above factors, the applicant’s request to amend the amount of compensation she seeks, is granted. There is no evidence that the respondents will be prejudiced by the amendment, and at the hearing they will be given the opportunity to present their submissions regarding whether it would be an appropriate remedy. 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, 20111 HRTO 1050. I also note that it is open to the Tribunal, on its own initiative, to seek the submissions of the parties on the appropriate remedy at any time, in the event that a violation of the Code is found.
7This 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 at the hearing, regarding this issue.
order
8For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. the applicant’s request to amend the Application is granted; and,
b. the Application is amended to include a request for remedy which includes financial compensation in the amount of $323,000.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of November, 2017.
“Signed by”
Maureen Doyle
Vice-chair