Farrell v. Grand & Toy, 2011 HRTO 1155

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Linda Farrell

Applicant

-and-

Grand & Toy Ltd.

Respondent

-and-

United Steelworkers, Local 9197

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1155

Indexed as: Farrell v. Grand & Toy

1The applicant filed an Application on December 4, 2009, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2On March 23, 2010, the applicant’s union, the United Steelworkers Local 9197 (“Union”) filed a Request to Intervene. The Union seeks to intervene in this Application because the Union is the exclusive bargaining agent of employees working at the applicant’s workplace and the applicant is a member of the Union. The Union indicates that it has relevant information about the facts as alleged in the Application. The Union indicates that, in particular, it is concerned that its interests may be affected by any remedy ordered in this matter.

3On March 24, 2010, the respondent filed its Response.

4On April 7, 2010, the applicant filed a Reply; however, the applicant did not make any submissions regarding the Union’s Request to intervene. The respondent also did not file a response regarding the Union’s Request to intervene.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

5As the Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

6Based on the material submitted by the Union, I am satisfied that the Union has an interest in the outcome of the Application and relevant information regarding the facts alleged in the Application. As such, in accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by a union, the Union’s Request to intervene is granted. The scope of the Union’s participation in the hearing will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the Application.

PRE-HEARING MATTERS

7A Notice of Confirmation of Hearing was issued on May 16, 2011, notifying the parties and the Union that the hearing of this Application is scheduled to proceed on November 1-2, 2011.

8Pursuant to Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”), all arguably relevant documents in the possession of a party must be disclosed to the other parties and confirmation of same must be filed with the Tribunal no later than 21 days after the Tribunal sends a Notice of Hearing.

9As of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant has not filed with the Tribunal confirmation of delivery of all arguably relevant documents in her possession. Given that the Union indicates that it has relevant information regarding the facts alleged in this Application, the Union will also be required to comply with Rule 16 and provide disclosure of its arguably relevant document to the other parties.

DIRECTIONS

10In these circumstances, the Tribunal orders as follows:

• The Union is added as an intervenor to this Application and the style of cause is amended to reflect the same; and
• Within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the applicant and the Union are required to provide their arguably relevant disclosure to the other parties and provide the Tribunal with confirmation of the same.

11I am not seized.