Belchior v. Bay View Lakeside Resorts Inc., 2017 HRTO 1477

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zelia Belchior Applicant

-and-

Bay View Lakeside Resorts Inc. Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Douglas Burmaster Applicant

-and-

Bay View Lakeside Resorts Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: November 8, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1477 Indexed as: Belchior v. Bay View Lakeshore Resorts Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Douglas Burmaster, Applicant Wade Poziomka, Counsel

Bay View Lakeside Resorts Inc., Respondent Brent Foreman, Counsel

Introduction

1These Applications allege discrimination with respect to contracts contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), seeking to amend its Response to the Application of Mr. Burmaster so that the respondent can include additional information, still denying the alleged discrimination as in the original Response.

2The applicant, Mr. Burmaster, consents to the Respondent’s request to amend its Response, as long as he may refer to the Initial Response draft at the hearing. The applicant, Ms. Belchior, appears to take no position, but she is represented by the same counsel as Mr. Burmaster so it appears that she also sees no prejudice to the proposed amendments as they might affect the hearing with respect to her Application.

3This Interim Decision grants the respondent’s request to amend the Response, and provides directions for additional steps for the parties prior to the hearing scheduled for February 12 and 13, 2018.

request to amend response

4In determining a request to amend a pleading, the Tribunal will consider a number of factors, including 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 Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16; and Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926.

5In reviewing the above factors, I note that the hearing is still months away, that the proposed amendments are related to the information in the original Response, and that the applicant most implicated by the proposed amendments, Mr. Burmaster, consents to them. There is nothing to prevent the applicants from referring to the Response as originally drafted in addition to the amended Response, and I cannot see any prejudice to either of them in granting the request to amend the Response to Mr. Burmaster’s Application.

order

6The RFOP is allowed, and the Response to Mr. Burmaster’s Application is amended in accordance with the amended Form 2 and attachments, including the “Schedule A”, filed by the respondent on February 14, 2017.

directions for next steps

7The applicant must file any amended Reply to the amended Response by no later than November 24, 2017.

8If the amendments require that the parties must deliver to each other additional arguably relevant documents, then they must do so by December 1, 2017.