HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Gallagher
Applicant
-and-
OCAD University
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Gallagher v. OCAD University
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
John Gallagher, Applicant
Self-represented
OCAD University, Respondent
Stephanie Young, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend his Application. It also addresses his claims of intimidation by the respondent and/or its counsel and warns him against continuing to use disrespectful language toward the respondent and/or its counsel in this proceeding.
request to amend
2By Application filed in October 18, 2016, the applicant alleged discrimination because of disability and reprisal. By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated October 31, 2017, the applicant sought to amend his Application to add certain allegations of sexual harassment/innuendo that allegedly occurred prior to October 2016. The respondent opposed the applicant’s request.
3In 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.
4Having considered the factors set out above, I deny the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The proposed amendment contains entirely new and unrelated allegations of discrimination that the applicant has raised over a year after the incidents allegedly occurred and just over a month before the hearing. The applicant could have, and should have, raised these new allegations well before now.
5The Tribunal has a mandate to process applications in a fair, just and expeditious manner. The allegations raised by the applicant appear to be untimely. In any event, if I were to permit the applicant to amend his Application, I would have to provide the respondent with the opportunity to amend its Response. I would also have to permit the parties to supplement the disclosure they have made in this case and to amend their list of witnesses. This would amount to a significant delay in this proceeding. For all these reasons, the applicant’s request to amend his Application is denied.
allegations of intimidation
6In his October 31, 2017 RFOP, the applicant alleged that the respondent and/or its counsel were intimidating him by sending documents to him by courier and also by using the word “served” in reference to their sending of documents.
7Neither of these actions are inappropriate. The Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure permit parties to deliver documents to opposing parties by courier. I note that the applicant requested that the respondent refrain from delivering documents to him by email. Therefore, I do not consider it inappropriate for the respondent to deliver documents to the applicant by courier.
8In its documentation, the Tribunal tends to use the word “deliver” instead of “serve” because it is easier to understand by parties with no legal training. However, the word “serve” is a perfectly appropriate and common legal term to use to mean “officially deliver”. There is nothing improper in the use of that term by the respondent or its counsel.
applicant’s continued use of disrespectful language toward the respondent
9In his latest RFOP, the applicant continued to use disrespectful language toward the respondent and its counsel. For example, he referred to the respondents and its counsel as “degenerates”.
10The Tribunal’s Rule of Procedure A7.1 provides:
All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceeding.
11In Cochrane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 913 at paras. 8-9, the Tribunal stated as follows:
Parties to a Tribunal application are engaged in a dispute which has been brought before the justice system. […] It is understandable that parties may have strong feelings about the events that gave rise to the dispute. They may disagree strongly with the submissions made by each other, be upset about the fact that the matter is before the Tribunal, or disagree with decisions made by the adjudicator. Parties and their representatives are required, however, to conduct themselves in the Tribunal’s process with courtesy and respect for each other and the Tribunal. While it is proper to express disagreement with another party’s submissions or evidence, it is never acceptable to descend into personal insults, the use of uncivil language, or discriminatory comments.
12I understand that Tribunal proceedings can be emotional for the parties involved. However, the applicant must cease accusing the respondent’s counsel of misconduct and he must cease using disrespectful language toward the respondent and/or its counsel during this proceeding.
compliance with previous production order
13The applicant stated that the respondent has not complied with my order to produce to him the full contents of his human recsources (“HR”) file. The respondent must confirm with the Tribunal in writing within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision that it has delivered the full contents of the applicant’s HR file to him.
orders/directions
14For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. The applicant’s request to amend his Application is denied;
b. The applicant must cease accusing the respondent’s counsel of misconduct and he must cease using disrespectful language toward the respondent and/or its counsel during this proceeding; and
c. Within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondent must write to the Tribunal to confirm that it has produced a full copy of the applicant’s HR file to him.
Dated at Toronto, this 21st day of November, 2017.
”Signed by”_______________
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair