Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may any filing to be “allow amended”. In deciding 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 respondents. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563. I found that the Application should be amended as described in the RFOP. The amendments to change identity” to and origin” to “gender “sex” “ethnic do not change the allegations but ensure that the grounds more accurately “creed” reflect the particulars contained in the Application. When filing her Application, the applicant did not have the benefit of legal representation. The applicant selected the ground identity” to represent the discrimination she allegedly experienced as a “gender woman. I find that the ground more accurately captures the allegations. The “sex” applicant also chose the ground origin” but handwrote next to the “ethnic “(religion)” ground to capture the discrimination she allegedly experienced as a person of the Catholic faith. I find that the ground more accurately captures the allegations. “creed” I also find that the Application should be amended to include the ground of reprisal. The substance of the allegation of reprisal is already contained in the Application and addressed in the Response. The respondents have not argued that they will be prejudiced by the amendments. I find that there is no apparent prejudice to the respondents in granting the Request. Request for an Adjournment
Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended”. In deciding 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 respondents. See, for example, Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563. I found that the Application should be amended as described in the RFOP. The amendments to change “gender identity” to “sex” and “ethnic origin” to “creed” do not change the allegations but ensure that the grounds more accurately reflect the particulars contained in the Application. When filing her Application, the applicant did not have the benefit of legal representation. The applicant selected the ground “gender identity” to represent the discrimination she allegedly experienced as a woman. I find that the ground “sex” more accurately captures the allegations. The applicant also chose the ground “ethnic origin” but handwrote “(religion)” next to the ground to capture the discrimination she allegedly experienced as a person of the Catholic faith. I find that the ground “creed” more accurately captures the allegations. I also find that the Application should be amended to include the ground of reprisal. The substance of the allegation of reprisal is already contained in the Application and addressed in the Response. The respondents have not argued that they will be prejudiced by the amendments. I find that there is no apparent prejudice to the respondents in granting the Request. Request for an Adjournment
2017%20HRTO%20588%20Valle%20Final%2026-May-2017.docx