HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Johnathan Stavrou
Applicant
-and-
WW Toronto Holdings L.P., operating as "Wet'n'Wild Toronto"
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Stavrou v. WW Toronto Holdings L.P.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Johnathan Stavrou, Applicant
Self-Represented
WW Toronto Holdings L.P., operating as "Wet'n'Wild Toronto", Respondent
Albert Formosa, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant's request to amend his Application.
2The applicant filed an Application on June 26, 2017, alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on his disability and failed to accommodate his disability.
3On October 12, 2017, the applicant sought to amend the Application ("request to amend") to add allegations of incidents that occurred from the date of the Application until August 3, 2017, when he resigned from his position with the respondent.
4On November 23, 2017, the respondent requested an extension of time to file its Response to 14 days after the Tribunal's decision with respect to the request to amend. The respondent submitted that, if the request to amend was granted, the Response would have to be amended to respond to the new allegations.
5The applicant opposed the request for an extension of time to file the Response.
6As the Tribunal had not issued a decision regarding the applicant's request to amend or the respondent's request for an extension, the respondent filed its Response within timeline on November 30, 2017. The Response appears to include a response to the Application, including the amendments requested by the applicant.
decision
7In 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.
8Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant's request to amend the Application. The request to amend was made before a Response had been filed. The amendments are simply further allegations of discrimination related to incidents that occurred up until the date of the applicant's resignation. They do not alter the nature of the allegations or the grounds of discrimination. The parties have presented no arguments to show that the respondent would be prejudiced by the amendment.
9It appears that the respondent has included in its Response its arguments related to the incidents in the amended Application. Notwithstanding, as this Interim Decision is issued after the Response was filed, I believe it is appropriate to allow the respondent to amend its Response.
order
10For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. the applicant's request to amend the Application is granted;
b. the Application is amended to include the proposed amendments included in paragraphs 3 to 32 of Schedule A attached to the applicant's Request for an Order During Proceedings filed on October 12, 2017;
c. the respondent may file an amended Response to the amendments made to the Application within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision; and
d. the applicant may file a Reply to the amended Response within 14 days of receiving any amended Response or within 28 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 8^th^ day of December, 2017.
"Signed by"
Josée Bouchard
Vice-chair