Santonato v. United Food and Commercial Workers, 2009 HRTO 728

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark Santonato

Applicant

-and-

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 12R24

and Rob Edwards

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Mark Santonato

Applicant

-and-

Brewers Retail Inc., Mark Lynch and Mike Nichol

Respondents

INTERIm DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: June 3, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 728

Indexed as: Santonato v. United Food and Commercial Workers

1These Applications were received on November 13, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A case resolution conference is scheduled for November 18 and 19, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicant’s request to add a party and amend the Application.

2The Application against Brewers Retail Inc. (the “Employer”), Mark Lynch and Mike Nichol relates to the Employer’s alleged failure to accommodate his disability related leave of absence. The Application against the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 12R24 (the “Union’) and Rob Edwards relates to the Union’s failure to pursue his grievance and their treatment of him at an October 3, 2007 meeting.

3The applicant seeks to add Cynthia Watson as a personal respondent to the Union Application on the basis that she was present at the meeting on October 3, 2007 and her actions and advice to the Union are at issue in his Application. The applicant named Ms. Watson in the body of his complaint dated June 9, 2008 filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission but did not identify her as a personal respondent.

4The transitional provisions of the Code are intended to deal with the subject matter of complaints filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008. In my view, the legislative intention as set out in the transition provisions is that section 53(3) applications should be dealt with in a highly expeditious manner. To that end, the Tribunal developed Rules to foster a fair, just and highly expeditious process. In particular Rule 6.3 states:

Applications made in accordance with these Rules must be based on the subject matter of the complaint or amended complaint filed at the Commission and the Tribunal will not entertain preliminary requests to add grounds, expand the subject matter of the complaint or add parties to the Application.

5In my view, it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding to permit the applicant to add Ms. Watson as a party to this proceeding. I note that Ms. Watson’s actions are nonetheless the subject of the Union Application and if she was acting as agent of the Union, her actions will bind the Union in any event. The applicant’s request to add Ms. Watson as a personal respondent to this Application is denied.

6The applicant also sought to amend the Union Application. In my view, the requested amendments are not necessary as they are more in the nature of clarification, particulars or statements of additional facts rather than amendments to the Application.

7This matter will proceed to hearing on November 18 and 19, 2009 and the preliminary requests by the respondents for early dismissal will be dealt with, along with the merits of the Application, on those dates.