Kailani v. Securitas Canada, 2009 HRTO 321

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yaser Kailani

Applicant

-and-

Securitas Canada Ltd.

Respondent

-and-

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 5296

Intervenor

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: March 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 321

Indexed as: Kailani v. Securitas Canada

1This is an Application filed July 28, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex.

2The Application was sent to the respondent and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 5296 (the “union”); the union that the applicant was a member of during his employment with the respondent. The union wrote to the Tribunal in August, indicating that it did not intend to make a Request to Intervene but provided information that it considered might be helpful to the consideration of the Application.

3The respondent raised a number of issues including a request for early dismissal on the grounds that the matter has been dealt with by a grievance that was settled by way of Minutes of Settlement, and a request that some of the allegations be struck. An earlier Interim Decision, 2009 HRTO 144, directed that a one day hearing be scheduled to deal with the issues raised by the respondent. A hearing has been scheduled for May 15, 2009 for this purpose.

4The Tribunal has now received a Request to Intervene, filed by the union. The union advises that subsequent to its earlier decision not to seek to intervene, it received the applicant’s Reply to the Response. In the Reply to the Response, the applicant made allegations about the union and its role in the settlement of the grievance. Neither the applicant nor the respondent have responded to the union’s Request to Intervene.

5The union represented the applicant in a grievance arising out of the facts that gave rise to this Application. In his Reply to the Response, the applicant has made allegations about the union’s representation in the grievance procedure. The union clearly has an interest in the Application, and the Request to Intervene is not opposed. The union’s request to intervene is granted.

6The applicant and respondent have delivered to each other and filed the Tribunal documents that they intend to rely on at the May 15, 2009 hearing. By March 27, 2009, the applicant and respondent shall send a copy of those documents to the union. The union shall file any documents that it intends to rely on with the other parties and the Tribunal by the same date.

7The scope of the union’s involvement in the hearing will be determined by the Tribunal Vice-chair who hears the matter.

8I am not seized of this matter.