Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Philip Matthews Applicant
-and-
Chrysler Canada Inc. and The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company Respondents
-and-
Canadian Autoworkers Union Local 1285 Intervenor
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: March 24, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 647 Indexed as: Matthews v. Chrysler Canada
Written Submissions By
Philip Matthews, Applicant ) On his own behalf Chrysler Canada Inc., Respondent ) Clifford J. Hart, Counsel The Manufacturers' Life Insurance Company, Respondent ) Hindy L. Boulakia, Counsel Canadian Autoworkers Union, Intervenor ) Leon Rideout, Representative
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), in which the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal. The respondents, who include the applicant's employer ("Chrysler"), three individual managers (Stephen Reed, Waldemer Skrzydiewski and John Sadowski) and an insurance company ("Manulife"), deny the allegations.
2Specifically, the applicant alleges that Chrysler discriminated against him in April 2008 by imposing discipline for a disability-related absence, denied him leave to attend training, and reprised against him through intimidation and harassment for having previously complained about alleged Code breaches. He further alleges that in July 2009, Chrysler refused a reasonable accommodation request to change shifts with a co-worker, which triggered disability-related symptoms causing him to miss five days of work. Additionally, the applicant names Manulife and alleges it discriminated against him by applying a different standard based on the nature of his disability in adjudicating his Sickness and Accident ("S&A") claim under Chrysler's employee benefits plan.
3The allegations contained in this Application follow allegations contained in a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and brought to the Tribunal pursuant to the transition provisions of the Code (the "Transition Application"). In the Transition Application, the applicant named Chrysler and a number of individual managers, alleging that he was denied reasonable accommodation in the workplace in 2006 and 2007.
4This Interim Decision addresses multiple preliminary issues, including the applicant's request to consolidate this Application with his Transition Application presently before the Tribunal in file number TR-0897-09, the union's request to intervene, the respondent Chrysler's request to remove the personal respondents and for early dismissal, and a request by the respondent Manulife for early dismissal.
Issues
Request to Consolidate
5By way of a Request for Order During Proceedings, filed on November 30, 2009, the applicant requests that this Application be consolidated or heard together with his Transition Application, filed on April 10, 2007, under the old Commission process and proceeding by way of the Tribunal's transitional procedure as file number TR-0897-09, filed under section 53(5) of the Code on June 30, 2009. The respondents do not oppose the Request.
6Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together. In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal adopted the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2002 CanLII 45928, outlining factors that should be considered in the context of whether to consolidate or hear proceedings together:
a. The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;
b. The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and
c. Whether there are common issues of fact or law.
7The Transition Application alleges that Chrysler failed to accommodate the applicant