Jose Gonzalez v. Toronto Catholic District School Board and Hanna Cabaj, 2009 HRTO 1900

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jose Gonzalez

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board and Hanna Cabaj

Respondents

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328

Intervenor

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 6, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1900

Indexed as: Gonzalez v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

1This is an Application filed on June 29, 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 he was subject to discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin and disability.

2The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328 (“CUPE”) has filed a request to intervene to which the applicant has had a chance to respond. CUPE represents a bargaining unit of employees of the respondent employer. The applicant was a member of the bargaining unit. CUPE seeks full party status and has indicated that it takes a similar position as the respondent employer and states that this Application should be dismissed on the basis that all of the issues raised in the Application were resolved by the settlement of a grievance filed by it on behalf of the applicant.

3The Tribunal’s Rule 14.1 provides:

The Tribunal may allow a person, organization or the Commission 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.

4The 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.

5In this case, the Application appears to raise issues that are likely of general interest to CUPE. Moreover, the preliminary issue raised by the respondents directly implicates CUPE as the party with carriage of the grievance, the settlement of which is said to dispose of the subject matter of the Application. CUPE is entitled to participate in the proceedings and the Request to Intervene is granted.

6CUPE is entitled to make submissions in respect of the preliminary issue raised in the Response and its Request to intervene. The extent of CUPE’s participation in any future proceedings will be determined by the Vice-chair or Member who presides over those proceedings.

7The respondents have indicated that they wish to make oral submission on the preliminary request to dismiss. The parties are directed to provide, within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision, their availability for a half day hearing in March 2010 to hear evidence and argument on the preliminary issues. The parties will deliver and file any further submissions or documents including summaries of intended evidence of their witnesses, if any, related to the preliminary issues at the latest 20 days before the hearing.

8I am not seized.