Miraglia v. University of Waterloo, 2009 HRTO 468

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anne Marie Miraglia

Applicant

-and-

University of Waterloo

Respondent

-and-

Faculty Association University of Waterloo

Intervener

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: April 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 468

Indexed as: Miraglia v. University of Waterloo

1This is an Application filed on November 27, 2008 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in her employment by the respondent because of her sex.

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider the Request to Intervene (“the Request”) made by Frank Reynolds on behalf of the Faculty Association University of Waterloo (“the faculty association”).

3The faculty association is not a certified bargaining unit. However, it is a party to a Memorandum of Agreement between the faculty association and the University of Waterloo, the respondent in this Application. The purposes of the Memorandum of Agreement include:

to set out terms and conditions of employment for Members and to describe procedures for developing and revising Policies concerning terms and conditions of employment.

4The Request was filed by Frank Reynolds on behalf of the faculty association. Mr. Reynolds was Chair of the Faculty Association’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee and appears to have been involved in that capacity in some of the events giving rise to the Application.

5According to the Request, the faculty association wishes to intervene in the Application for the purpose of “ensuring that the Memorandum of Agreement and University policies are followed and not breached.” Such concerns are typically the reason why a trade union or professional organization may wish to intervene in an Application.

6The Request goes on, however, to set out Mr. Reynolds’s personal views of the history of the matter and sets out information that he has based on his personal involvement.

7In her Response to the Request, the applicant opposes the request to intervene. She indicates that she contests some of the history of the matter set out in the Request, although she also asks that some of the history be accepted as fact in the Application.

8The Tribunal’s Rule 11.2 provides:

11.1 The Tribunal may allow a person or organization 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.

9The 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.

10In this case, the Application appears to raise issues that are of general interest to the faculty association. The faculty association is entitled to participate in the proceedings. The extent of the faculty association’s participation in any future proceedings will be determined by the Vice-chair or Member who presides over those proceedings. The presiding adjudicator will be in the best position to address the applicant’s concerns about the nature and scope of any evidence that the faculty association may have to offer.

11I am not seized of the Application.