Rumble v. National Automobile, Aerospace Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, Local 636, 2009 HRTO 1636

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Rumble

Applicant

-and-

The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 636 and Bart Ware and Peter Birmingham

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

William Rumble

Applicant

-and-

TRW Kelsey-Hayes, Brenda Brown, Jack Carter

and Rick Comrie

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: October 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1636

Indexed as: Rumble v. National Automobile, Aerospace Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada, Local 636

1These Applications were filed June 22, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). This Interim Decision deals with a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add parties and directs how the respondents’ preliminary requests for early dismissal will be dealt with.

2The applicant’s original complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission was filed on July 4, 2007. He alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. On September 21, 2009 the applicant sought to add Norm Birch, Assistant Manger, Human Resources as a respondent to the Application.

3The Tribunal has held that where alleged facts, if proven, could lead to a finding that the proposed respondent infringed the applicant’s rights under the Code; and the proposed respondent would not suffer real and substantial prejudice if added as a party to the proceeding, the proposed respondent may be added as a party to the proceeding, at the Tribunal’s discretion: Greenhorn v. 621509 Ontario Inc. (Belleville Dodge Chrysler Jeep), 2006 HRTO 22. While Greenhorn was decided under the old Code, the principles remain applicable in this case.

4The applicable provision of the new Code relating to parties is section 36:

The parties to an application under section 34 or 35 are the following:

1. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (1), the person who made the application.

2. In the case of an application under subsection 34 (5), the person on behalf of whom the application is made.

3. In the case of an application under section 35, the Commission.

4. Any person against whom an order is sought in the application.

5. Any other person or the Commission, if they are added as a party by the Tribunal.

5Under s. 36(5), the Tribunal continues to have a broad discretion to add parties to an application.

6The applicant has not set out any allegations which could lead to a finding that Mr. Birch personally breached the applicant’s rights under the Code. His actions bide the corporate respondent in any event. Accordingly, the applicant’s request to add Mr. Birch as a respondent is denied.

7All respondents have raised the issue of timeliness and the respondents in TR-0536-09 have also raised a question of whether the facts alleged could give rise to a finding of discrimination by them.

8The Tribunal will schedule a half-day hearing to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issues.