Joel Rampersad v. York University and Shirley Katz, 2010 HRTO 1423

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joel Rampersad

Applicant

-and-

York University and Shirley Katz

Respondents

-and-

York University Faculty Association

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: June 28, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1423

Indexed as: Rampersad v. York University

1This Application was filed July 2, 2009, pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and alleges discrimination on the basis of race, colour and ethnic origin in the area of goods, services and facilities, and reprisal or threat of reprisal. A hearing in this matter is scheduled on July 28, 29 and 30, 2010.

2This Interim Decision addresses a Request by the York University Faculty Association (“YUFA”) to intervene in the Application and the respondents’ Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

3YUFA is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit that includes the individual respondent, Dr. Shirley Katz.

4YUFA notes that, in his Application, the applicant requests as a remedy that Dr. Katz be fired. YUFA submits that it has an interest in any order the Tribunal may make that could affect Dr. Katz’s employment or her rights under the collective agreement, or impact on the rights of other YUFA members.

5With respect to the terms on which YUFA seeks to intervene, YUFA requests that it be allowed to make submissions with respect to the operation and interpretation of the collective agreement, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to make the order requested by the applicant, and any other remedial issues that may impact on the collective agreement rights of Dr. Katz or other members of YUFA.

6The Request to Intervene was delivered to the parties. The parties did not provide Responses and the time for doing so has elapsed.

7Rule 11.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides as follows:

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.

8In the circumstances I am satisfied that YUFA should be granted intervenor status on the terms it has requested.

9The York University Faculty Association is added to this Application as an intervenor, and the style of cause is amended accordingly. The parties are instructed to copy YUFA with any subsequent materials filed in this matter.

REQUESTS FOR ORDERS DURING PROCEEDINGS

10On April 22, 2010, the respondents filed a Request for an Order requiring the applicant to comply with his obligations under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules and provide the respondents with his disclosure. The applicant responded by email stating, in part, as follows:

I have already sent my submissions to the HRTO as well as to York’s legal representatives. At this juncture, submission wise, there is nothing else I have to say. As far as I know, all parties concerned are in possession and are cognizant of my claims.

11On June 22, 2010, the respondents filed a second Request for an Order requiring the applicant to comply with his obligations under Rules 16.2 and 17.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules and provide the respondents with his documents, witness list, and witness statements.

12The Orders that the respondents seek are already requirements pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules. On March 16, 2010, the Tribunal sent a Confirmation of Hearing (“Confirmation”) to the parties which indicated to the parties that they were to meet the disclosure requirements set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 16 requires that parties send all arguably relevant documents to each other, within 21 days of the date of the Confirmation. In addition, no later than 45 days prior to the first hearing day, the parties are to send to each other, as well as the Tribunal, copies of the documents they wish to rely on at the hearing (Rule 16), a list of proposed witnesses, and statements briefly describing the witnesses’ intended testimony (Rule 17).

13Rule 5.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that when a party fails to deliver materials to another party as required by the Rules the Tribunal may refuse to consider the material or may take any other action it considers appropriate. Rules 16 and 17 also provide that no party may rely on or present any document not included on a document list and provided to the other parties and the Tribunal, or present a witness whose name and summary of evidence was not included in a witness list and delivered and filed in accordance with the Rules, except with the permission of the Tribunal.

14I note that the applicant has included a number of documents with his materials. If the applicant has any additional arguably relevant documents in his possession, he is directed to deliver them to the respondents and the intervenor immediately. In addition, if the applicant plans to introduce documents or witnesses into evidence at the hearing, he must comply with Rules 16 and 17 immediately, and forward these materials to the respondents, the intervenor, and the Tribunal. Failure to comply with Rules 16 and 17 may result in the Tribunal refusing permission to introduce documents or evidence of witnesses not disclosed.