HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
M.G. as represented by his Litigation Guardian H.G. and
M.G. as represented by her Litigation Guardian H.G.
Applicants
-and-
Durham District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: M.G. v. Durham District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
M.G. as represented by his Litigation Guardian H.G. and M.G. as represented by her Litigation Guardian H.G., Applicants
Luke Reid, Counsel
Durham District School Board, Respondent
Njeri Damali Campbell, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the request of the claimant, M.G. as represented by his Litigation Guardian H.G. (“H.G.’s son”), to amend his Application and to add a claimant, M.G. as represented by her Litigation Guardian H.G. (“H.G.’s daughter”).
2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her son’s needs related to his medical condition.
3On, July 12, 2017, the applicant sought to amend the Application to add the following:
a. Her daughter as a party to the Application. The applicant filed the Litigation Guardian on Behalf of a Minor form with her request to amend.
b. Allegations that her daughter experienced and continues to experience discrimination as a student of the respondent’s in the same manner as her brother has.
4By letter to the Tribunal filed on July 13, 2017, the respondent consented to the request to amend the Application but requested that it be provided with ample opportunity to respond to the new allegations. Counsel for the respondent noted that she would be away from August 14 to September 5, 2017.
decision
Adding an Applicant
5The applicant seeks to add her daughter as a claimant to these proceedings. The applicant indicates that the purpose of adding her daughter as a party is to address the discrimination she faces as a student of the respondent’s, which is the same discrimination her brother experiences. The applicant’s daughter was not included in the initial Application as she had just begun to attend school at the respondent’s.
6The applicant notes that in Tabar, Lee, and Lee v. Scott and West End Construction Ltd. (1984), 1984 CanLII 5080 (ON HRT), 6 CHRR D/2471 (Ont. Bd. Inq.), a claimant party was added to the matter “without any conceivable prejudice to the respondents” as they were aware of the events and the nature of the claim remained the same (para. 20580).
7Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to add her daughter to the Application. The respondent does not oppose the amendment request and has not argued that it would be prejudiced by the amendment. The nature of the allegations and a large majority of the facts remain exactly the same. Adding the applicant’s daughter to the Application is the most fair, just and expeditious resolution of the matter.
Amending the Application
8In 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, and Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926.
9Having considered the factors set out above, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application. The respondent does not oppose the amendment request and has not argued that it would be prejudiced by the amendment. The allegations in the amended Application are connected to and do not alter the original allegations in the Application: that the respondent continues to fail to accommodate the medical condition of the applicant’s son and daughter. The amendments do not broaden the scope of the issues to be determined and do not raise issues that the respondent is not aware of. The request is also made before the deadline of December 4, 2017 for the disclosure of documents and witnesses pursuant to Rules 16.2, 16.3, 17.1 and 17.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and the hearing is several months away.
order
10For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. M.G. as represented by her Litigation Guardian H.G is added an a party to the Application;
b. the applicant’s request to amend the