Luczon v. Provincial Moving and Office Installations Inc., 2017 HRTO 1652

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lloyd Luczon

Applicant

-and-

Provincial Moving and Office Installations Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: December 12, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1652

Indexed as: Luczon v. Provincial Moving and Office Installations Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lloyd Luczon, Applicant

Anna Kalinichenko, Counsel

Provincial Moving and Office Installations Inc., Respondent

John Foley, Representative

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s Request to amend the Application.

BACKGROUND

2On November 17, 2016, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability.

3On February 3, 2017 the respondent filed a Response.

4On November 15, 2017, the applicant filed a Request to amend the Application to add allegations of reprisal and to amend the remedies requested. In the Request, the applicant alleges that he experience reprisal for asserting his rights under the Code when he applied for a position at the respondent’s company.

5The respondent has not filed a Response to this Request and the time limit for filing has now passed.

6On August 3, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing. The hearing of the Application is scheduled for March 16, 2018. The Notice directed the parties to exchange all arguably relevant documents by August 24, 2017 and the parties have confirmed that this has been completed. The Notice of Hearing also directs the parties to serve and file all documents they will rely on for the hearing as well as witness statements on or before January 30, 2018.

REQUEST TO AMEND APPLICATION

7The Tribunal has a duty to dispose of Applications fairly, justly and expeditiously (See Section 40 of the Code and Rule 1.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules). In determining a Request to amend an Application, 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 respondent, and the impact on the course of the hearing. See Boldt-Macpherson v. The Hoita Kokoro Centre et al, 2008 HRTO 16 ; Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozeilek v. 7-Eleven Canada, 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

8The applicant submits that there would be no prejudice to the respondent in allowing this Request as the allegation of reprisal can be inferred from the narrative in the Application as filed; adding reprisal would not change the nature of the hearing as it is based on the same facts as alleged in the Application; and the Request is filed within one year of the date of its occurrence.

9The applicant submits that the respondent will not be prejudiced if the remedies requested are amended.

10Having considered the factors outlined in paragraph 9, the amendments are allowed. The amendments provide particulars of the reprisal allegations relating to incidents that were already detailed in the Application. The respondent has not claimed that allowing the amendments would cause it any prejudice. There is still sufficient time before the hearing and the deadline for filing documents and witnesses statements for the respondent to prepare to respond to the reprisal allegation.

11The hearing of the Application is a few months away and this allows the respondent sufficient time to adequately prepare to respond to the reprisal allegation.

12Remedies are awarded by the Tribunal after a finding of discrimination and after hearing submissions on appropriate remedies. I find that there is not prejudice to the respondent in granting the amendment to remedies requested.

ORDERS

13The applicant’s request to amend the Application to add reprisal as a ground and to modify the remedies requested as set out in Appendix A to the Request is allowed.

14If the parties have any arguably relevant documents that relate to the ground of reprisal that have not yet been exchanged, these documents must be exchanged by January 5, 2018.

15I am not seized.