Mukesh Goel v. Peel District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1157

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Goel Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Judith Nyman, Carol Speers, Ian Adamson, Jim Grieve, Jan Coomber, Paul Jones, Susan Hiraishi and Tony Pontes Respondents

-and-

Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, District 19 Intervenor

A N D B E T W E E N:

Mukesh Goel Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board, Carol Speers and Susan Hiraishi Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: June 14, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1157 Indexed as: Goel v. Peel District School Board

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) (the “Application”). The applicant also has another Application before the Tribunal (TR-0729-08) that deals with a complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on November 2, 2005, which was pursued as an Application to the Tribunal pursuant to the transitional provisions of the Code in s.53(5) (the “Transitional Application”).

2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address several preliminary matters raised by the parties and to address a Request to Intervene by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, District, 19 (the “OSSTF”).

Request to Intervene:

3In this Application the applicant alleges discrimination in employment. The OSSTF is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant’s workplace. The Tribunal, therefore, gave notice of the s. 34 Application to the union.

4The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. It has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial orders requested by the applicant. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have responded to the union’s Request to Intervene and the time for doing so has passed. The union’s request to intervene in respect of Tribunal File 2010-05678-I is granted. The extent and nature of the union’s participation can be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

Consolidation, Dismissal for Delay and s.45.1 of the Code, and Intervention of Union in the Transitional File

5The applicant seeks consolidation of the two Applications before the Tribunal.

6The respondents have raised a number of issues. They seek dismissal of parts of the Application for delay, dismissal of the reprisal allegation on the basis of s.45.1 and dismissal of the balance of the Application on the basis that there is no prima facie case.

7It is unclear from the materials filed whether the union also seeks to intervene in the Transitional Application (File TR-0729-09).

8In my view, a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the matters raised requires that both matters be set down for a half day hearing during which the Tribunal will hear the submissions of the parties and the intervenor on the following issues:

(a) whether some or all of the issues raised in Tribunal File 2010-05678-I should be dismissed on the basis of delay;

(b) whether the reprisal allegation raised by the applicant in Tribunal File 2010-05678-I should be dismissed on the basis that the substance of the reprisal allegation has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding, specifically OLRB File No. 4309-04-OH;

(c) whether the two Applications should be consolidated; and

(d) clarification by the union as to whether it also seeks to intervene in the Transitional Application (File TR-0729-09).

9If any of the parties wish to rely on any written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) or facts not already before the Tribunal, they must deliver such additional material to the other parties and file it with the Registrar no later than two weeks before the date of the hearing.

10I am not seized.