[1]           This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request to amend her Application.

[2]           The 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 alleged that the respondent employer failed to accommodate her disability and that it terminated her employment due to her disability.

[3]           On October 10, 2018, the applicant sought to amend the Application to add an allegation that the respondent employer also terminated her employment due to her family status. She alleges that her employer disliked her fiancé. She submits that she did not originally include this allegation in her Application because she did not realize until read the Response to her Application, that it formed part of the respondent’s motive in terminating her employment. In particular, she notes that in discussing its history of employing the applicant, it alleged that it had been aware of the applicant dealing with issues of domestic abuse. In her Request to Amend, she makes reference to a comment she alleges her employer first made in September 2017, indicating her dislike for the applicant’s fiancé.

[4]           In 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.

[5]           Having considered the factors set out above, I deny the applicant’s request to amend the Application.

[6]           The applicant now seeks to add another ground to her allegation that she was terminated for reasons contrary to the Code. This would expand the issue before the Tribunal and lengthen the hearing. Of further significance in this case, however, in considering the amendment she seeks to make I do not find that her allegation includes details that could connect a decision to terminate her employment to the respondent employer’s alleged dislike of her fiancé. Further, in considering the reason the applicant provides for not having included this allegation in the original Application, I am not persuaded that she has provided any compelling reason for her failure to include it earlier, as when she filed her Application; she already had the information which led her to conclude that her employer disliked her fiancé. Additionally, she was represented by counsel when her Application was filed, and it would be expected that all relevant factors would have been canvassed with the applicant prior to filing the Application.  While the timing of the Request to Amend is not extraordinarily late or close to the June 6, 2019 hearing date in this matter, I note that the respondent would likely wish to file an amended Response to the Application, arguably complicating the process as well as leading to extra cost to it at this stage.

[7]            For the reasons above, especially where the new allegation does not appear to be one which clearly provides a basis for a link between family status and the applicant’s termination, and especially in the absence of a compelling reason for the applicant’s delay in making this allegation, I do not find that this is an appropriate case to exercise my discretion to amend the Application. 

[8]           For the reasons set out above, the applicant’s request to amend the Application is denied.