Francisca Wint v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2009 HRTO 1496

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Francisca Wint

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board, Dennis Murphy, Angela Gauthier,

Isolina Varano and Jo Nazar

Respondents

-and-

CUPE, Local 1328

Intervener

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Dale Hewat

Date: September 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1496

Indexed as: Wint v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed on February 10, 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 has suffered discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of ethnic origin, place of origin, race, colour and reprisal and she has named four personal respondents. CUPE, Local 1328 has been named as an affected party.

2On August 12, 2009, the Tribunal received a Request to Intervene in this matter by CUPE, Local 1328 (“CUPE”). The appropriate Form TR-3 was delivered by CUPE to all of the parties giving them a chance to respond.

3This Interim Decision addresses CUPE’s intervention Request.

Request by Union to Intervene

4CUPE is the applicant’s bargaining agent with the respondent school board. CUPE filed a grievance on behalf of the applicant regarding the same issues raised in the Application. The grievance was subsequently withdrawn. In her Application, the applicant named CUPE as an affected party and describes its role in dealing with her allegations of discrimination against the respondents.

5The Tribunal’s Rules provide:

11.1 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.

6In this case, the Application appears to raise issues that may affect CUPE. As such, the Request to Intervene is granted. The extent of CUPE’s participation in any future proceedings will be determined by the Vice-chair or Member who presides over those proceedings. The presiding adjudicator will be in the best position to address the applicant’s concerns about the nature and scope of any evidence that the union may have to offer.

7I am not seized.