Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted a plaintiff leave to amend his statement of claim to include a claim for damages relating to alleged human rights violations.
This ruling followed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s parallel application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The court relied on the principles of fairness and the doctrine of election and allowed the plaintiff to pursue his claims in a single legal proceeding.
Background of the case
The plaintiff initiated a civil action alongside an application before the HRTO. His civil action alleged discrimination and breach of human rights but did not initially seek damages for these violations. The civil action referenced his HRTO application, which was allegedly the reason that he pursued no statutory damages under the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1990 in the civil action.
The defendant moved to dismiss the HRTO application. The civil action and the HRTO proceeding were factually and legally identical in substance, the defendant claimed. Both matters involved allegations of employment discrimination based on the plaintiff's post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and a failure to accommodate these conditions, the defendant argued.
The HRTO dismissed the plaintiff's application. It agreed with the defendant’s arguments and decided that a single forum should resolve both matters, which were part of the same factual matrix.
The plaintiff’s motion to amend
After the dismissal, the plaintiff sought to amend his civil action to include a damages claim for the alleged human rights violations.
The defendant opposed and argued that allowing an amendment of the claim would amount to an abuse of process. The defendant also expressed concern that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action after the expiration of the relevant limitation period.
The court’s decision
In Kanhai v Toronto Transit Commission, 2024 ONSC 3986, the Superior Court ruled that the plaintiff was not introducing a new cause of action or raising new legal issues not already considered in the original claim. Instead, the plaintiff was seeking an additional remedy based on the same facts pleaded from the outset, the court said.
Most Read
The court found the plaintiff's proposed amendment consistent with the legal principles in the cases of Galluzzi v Pearlann Consulting Inc., 2017 ONSC 3298 and Klassen v Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407.
The court explained that these precedents confirmed that amendments to a statement of claim were permissible when they did not introduce a fundamentally different claim and instead requested alternative relief based on the same factual matrix.
The HRTO’s decision acknowledged that the facts of both the civil action and the HRTO application were identical, the court noted. The defendant also argued before the HRTO that the claims were the same in both proceedings, the court added.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the claim was statute-barred. The court held that permitting the amendment would not prejudice the defendant, which knew about the plaintiff’s claim since at least August 2019.
Costs awarded
The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $5,000. The court found this amount reasonable, considering the circumstances of the case and the defendant’s bill of costs.
