Lucy Potvin v. Hydro One Networks Inc., 2009 HRTO 41

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lucy Potvin

Applicant

-and-

Hydro One Networks Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Skilled Workers

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: January 13, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 41

Indexed as: Potvin v. Hydro One Networks

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed with the Tribunal on September 16, 2008 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider the Request to Intervene made by the applicant’s union, the Canadian Union of Skilled Workers (the “union”).

2In this Application, the applicant alleges discrimination and harassment in employment, on the ground of sex. The union is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant’s workplace.

3The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The union asks to “participate as an observer with the ability to make submissions with respect to remedy”. The union states that, as bargaining agent for the applicant, it “is interested in identifying and rectifying any discriminatory practices in the workplace”.

4The applicant did not take advantage of her opportunity under Rule 11.4 to file a Response to the Request to Intervene, and has therefore neither agreed nor objected to the proposed intervention. The respondent opposes the intervention, indicating that the union has no unique perspective or important information that cannot be adduced without its intervention, and that the outcome of the Application is unlikely to have any significant implications for the union or its members. The respondent submits that the intervention might shift the focus from the individual interests of the applicant to those of the union, unduly delaying or prejudicing the determination of the rights of the parties.

5The union represents the applicant, but there is no mention by either party of any grievance arising out of the facts that give rise to this Application.

6The issues raised in this Application, discrimination on the ground of sex and sexual harassment, potentially affect every employee in the applicant’s workplace. If the applicant establishes the existence of actions or practices that offend the Code, any remedies awarded might affect employees other than the applicant, and might also affect the union itself. The union, as representative of many employees in the applicant’s workplace, clearly has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial order requested by the applicant, “Human Rights Training for the Respondent and its agents”. Further, the union is not requesting full party status, but permission to participate as an observer with the ability to make submissions with respect to remedy. I see no serious risk of unduly delay or prejudice to the determination of the rights of the parties. Accordingly, the union’s request to intervene is granted.

ORDER

7The Canadian Union of Skilled Workers is added to this Application as a non-party intervenor on the following conditions:

(a.) The union may attend the mediation as an observer.

(b.) At any subsequent hearing in this matter, the union is not entitled to lead any evidence or to cross-examine any witnesses. The union may make submissions as to remedy. The union’s submissions must focus on its perspective as the bargaining agent for its members.

8The parties are instructed to copy the union with any subsequent materials in this matter.

9The Registrar will provide the union with copies of the Application, Response and Reply.

10I am not seized of this matter.