Thomas v. IATSE Local 461, 2010 HRTO 1748

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Rose Marie Thomas Applicant

-and-

IATSE Local 461, Shaw Festival Foundation, Domenico Marcone, William Talbot, Margaret Molokach, Douglas Ledingham, David Edwards, Archie MacKenzie, and Don Finlayson Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: August 26, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1748 Indexed as: Thomas v. IATSE Local 461

1This is an Application filed on April 24, 2009 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine two Requests for Orders During Proceedings filed by the applicant.

REQUEST TO AMEND

3By Request dated August 26, 2009, the applicant seeks to amend her Application. She wishes to request additional remedial orders, and to revise portions of her narrative. The respondents, the Shaw Festival Foundation and Don Finlayson (the “Shaw respondents”) filed a Response to the Request, objecting to it. The other respondents (the “Union respondents”) did not file a Response.

4The Shaw respondents question the applicant’s reasons for seeking the amendments. They also object to the Request on the basis that it comes after the respondents have filed lengthy and detailed Responses.

5In consideration of all the circumstances, the Tribunal grants the request to amend. The respondents will have three weeks from the date of this Interim Decision to file amended Responses to the Application as amended should they wish to do so.

REQUEST TO ADD A PARTY

6The request to add the IATSE Local 461 Health Benefits Trust (the “Trust”) as a respondent is denied.

7In considering a request to add a respondent, the first question the Tribunal considers is whether there are allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code. In the Application, the only reference that can be read as relating to the Trust concerns the cancellation of the applicant’s benefits package. The applicant states that her benefits package was cancelled without notice and despite a “large portion” being pre-paid by her employer for 2009. The Union acknowledges that the provision of benefits coverage to the applicant ended once the applicant was no longer a member of the Union. One of the main issues in the Application concerns the denial of membership in the Union.

8The Request to add the Trust as a respondent does not provide any additional allegations against the Trust.

9I am not convinced that the allegations made could support a finding that the Trust violated the Code. Nothing in the narrative links the actions purportedly taken by the Trust to a ground of discrimination under the Code. I see no allegations in the Application that could support an independent basis for a finding of liability against the Trust.

10The Request to add the Trust as a respondent is accordingly denied.

11Mediation of the Application has not resulted in a settlement. Accordingly, the matter will be scheduled for hearing. The Tribunal will schedule three days of hearing initially, to be held in Toronto.