Mary Louise Heyens v. The Corporation of the City of Guelph, Ron Wisniewski, Patrick Kelly and Andy Vandermeer, 2009 HRTO 1263

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Louise Heyens

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Guelph, Ron Wisniewski, Patrick Kelly and Andy Vandermeer

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 241

Intervenor

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: August 14, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1263

Indexed as: Heyens v. Guelph (City)

1This is an Application filed on February 18, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that she was subject to discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and age. She also alleges reprisal and sexual solicitation.

2The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 241 (“CUPE”) has filed a request to intervene to which the applicant has had a chance to respond. The applicant objects to CUPE being granted the right to intervene. The applicant states that CUPE is in a conflict of interest representing the individual respondents.

3CUPE represents a bargaining unit of employees of the respondent employer. The individual respondents are all members of the bargaining unit. CUPE states, amongst other reasons to grant its request, that the applicant is seeking remedies that if granted would affect its members in significant ways. As such it has a valid and significant interest in the outcome of the Application.

4The Tribunal’s Rule 14 provides:

14.1 The Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.

5The first issue to be determined is whether the person or organization will be permitted to intervene. If the person or organization is permitted to intervene, the next question is the extent of participation. In most cases, the determination of the first question will be decided, as in this case, as a preliminary issue in advance of a hearing. In my view, in most cases, it is appropriate for the Vice-chair or Member who presides over the hearing to decide the extent and nature of the participation of the intervenor. The presiding adjudicator will generally be in the best position to decide issues such as whether the intervenor may call evidence, the scope of any such evidence, and the extent and scope of any submissions that the intervenor may be permitted to make.

6In this case, the Application appears to raise issues that are likely of general interest to the union. CUPE is entitled to participate in the proceedings. The Request to Intervene is granted. The extent of the union’s participation in any future proceedings will be determined by the Vice-chair or Member who presides over those proceedings.

7I am not seized.