Messiah v. Snap-on Tools of Canada, 2009 HRTO 95

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maurice Messiah

Applicant

-and-

Snap-On Tools of Canada Ltd., Adam Sojda, Harold Saunders and Tran Toung

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: January 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 95

Indexed as: Messiah v. Snap-on Tools of Canada

1The applicant filed an Application on October 10, 2008 under section 34 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, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin.

2This Interim Decision deals with two preliminary matters:

a) a Request to Intervene (“Request’) filed by the United Steelworkers Local 9042 (the “union”); and

b) the respondents’ request for early dismissal of the Application based on minutes of settlement entered into by the applicant, the union and Snap-On Tools of Canada Ltd. (the “corporate respondent”) as settlement of a grievance.

THE UNION’S REQUEST TO INTERVENE

3The union seeks to intervene pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) in order to provide facts and documents related to the applicant’s grievance and the grievance process. The union takes no position regarding the applicant’s allegations, except as they relate to the union’s alleged conduct. The union also takes no position as to the remedies sought by the applicant.

4The Request was filed on November 25, 2008. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have responded to the Request and the time for doing so under the Rules has now elapsed.

5Based on the materials before me, I find that the union’s position and stated interests relate to the preliminary issue of the grievance process, the scope of the settlement and the respondents’ request for an early dismissal of the Application. The union’s position and stated interests do not relate to the merits of the Application or the allegations of discrimination.

6Given the nature of the union’s interests and position, I find that the union may intervene in the hearing of the respondents’ request for early dismissal of the Application. However, I find that it is not appropriate for the union to intervene in the proceedings beyond the hearing of this preliminary matter.

7This Order is subject to the following conditions:

a) The Intervenor may call evidence provided it can demonstrate that the evidence will be relevant and helpful to the resolution of the request for an early dismissal; and

b) The Intervenor may cross-examine witnesses provided that the cross-examination is not repetitive and is helpful to a resolution of the request for early dismissal by the Tribunal.

THE RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST FOR EARLY DISMISSAL

8The applicant does not dispute that he, the union and the corporate respondent entered into a settlement agreement. However, the applicant states that he did not sign a release. He argues that the grievance and resulting settlement agreement do not address the issues raised in the Application.

9Conversely, the respondents state that the settlement agreement is binding and deals with all matters raised in the Application. They ask for early dismissal of this Application on the basis of the settlement agreement.

10Section 45.1 of the Code provides:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

11Rule 22.1 states:

The Tribunal may dismiss part or all of the Application where it determines, under section 45.1 of the Code, that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of part or all of an Application.

12In the circumstances, it is appropriate to determine the respondents’ request for an early dismissal of the Application as a preliminary matter.

13Section 43(2) of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application without affording the parties a chance to make oral submissions. Accordingly, the Registrar will schedule a hearing to address the following issue:

Should the Application against the respondents be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code as a result of the settlement agreement signed by the applicant on January 16, 2008?

14The following directions shall apply to the hearing:

(a) The applicant should be prepared to proceed first at the hearing, by responding to the written arguments of the respondents and the Intervenor and the question set out in paragraph 13 above.

(b) Any party wishing to rely on written materials not already filed with the Tribunal or any facts not contained in the Application, Responses or Request to Intervene must deliver such documents or information to the other parties and file them with the Registrar within 21 days of the date of this decision.

(c) No further steps need be taken by any party prior to the hearing of the preliminary issue.

15In preparing for the hearing, the parties may wish to review section 45.1 of the Code, Rule 22, the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on those provisions and the Applicant’s Guide, pages 4-5, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office.

16I am not seized of this matter.