HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Anthony Colella
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Catholic District School Board, Bob Dubniak, Betty Stavropoulos, Chandrima Collure, Stacey Lawrie, Dante Iafrate, Caesare Mirabelli and Elizabeth Rossi
Respondents
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1280
Intervenor
Interim DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Colella v. Toronto District Catholic School Board
1This is an Application filed on June 29, 2009 pursuant to section 53(5) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that his right to be free of discrimination and harassment in the workplace in respect of an alleged disability has been infringed by the respondents.
2This Interim Decision deals with a Request to Intervene filed by the applicant’s bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1280 (“CUPE”).
3The applicant although invited to respond to the Request did not do so.
4CUPE states that it is the bargaining agent of the applicant and represents him in relation to workplace issues. It is further stated that the applicant has filed a number of grievances some of which have resolved and others not.
5The 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.
6The 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.
7In this case, the Application appears to raise issues that are likely of general interest to CUPE. I note, for example, that amongst the remedies sought by the applicant is to be reinstated into a position he states he held from 1990 to 2002. Such a request clearly raises issues that will be of interest to CUPE as the representative of the applicant and his workplace colleagues in the bargaining unit. 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.
ORDER
8CUPE’s Request to Intervene is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of December, 2009.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair