Schreiner v. A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc., 2011 HRTO 1355

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard Schreiner

Applicant

-and-

A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Auto Workers, Local 195

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: July 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1355

Indexed as: Schreiner v. A.G. Simpson Automotive Inc.

1This Interim Decision deals with the Request to Intervene by the applicant’s union, the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 195 (“CAW”), and the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 and/or as an abuse of process.

2The applicant filed this Application on October 15, 2010, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

3The applicant is a member of the CAW, which filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) on December 15, 2010. It filed an extensive statement of facts setting out its involvement with the applicant over his years with the respondent company and the reasons for its decision to not pursue the grievance of his May 5, 2010 termination from employment. None of the parties filed a Response to the Request to Intervene and the time for so doing has now passed.

4The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of one of its bargaining units and that, absent exceptional circumstances, will be granted intervention status when it so requests it. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

5Moreover, given the CAW’s involvement with the applicant over the years, it can assist the Tribunal in determining some of the issues, including the respondent’s request to dismiss discussed below. Accordingly, the CAW is granted leave to intervene. Should the Application proceed to hearing, the scope of the CAW’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

REQUEST TO DISMISS

6In its Response, the respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent identifies the Board of Referees Decision denying the applicant Employment Insurance. It also identifies the grievance procedure initiated on the applicant’s behalf by the CAW.

7Finally, it asserts that the applicant agreed to not file another (related) grievance in settlement of an earlier grievance filed on behalf of the applicant, and that to proceed would be an abuse of process.

8The Tribunal will deal with these issues at the hearing on the merits of this Application.

ORDERS

9In sum, the Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The CAW is granted leave to intervene; and

2. the Tribunal will deal with the respondent’s request to dismiss this Application under s. 45.1 and/or as an abuse of process at the hearing on the merits of this Application.

10I am not seized of this matter.