HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Gary Gazankas Applicant
-and-
Municipality of Red Lake Respondent
-and-
Walter Scarrow Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: August 11, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1497 Indexed as: Gazankas v. Municipality of Red Lake
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Gary Gazankas, Applicant ) William G. Shanks, Counsel Municipality of Red Lake, Respondent ) Paula Ruzak, Counsel Walter Scarrow, Intervenor ) Andrew Reynolds, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This is an Application filed May 8, 2009, pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"). The applicant alleges he was not awarded the position of Fire Chief with the respondent Municipality because of his age.
2On January 23, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Tribunal Form 10), seeking to file an amended Application. By Interim Order dated February 14, 2011, the Application was amended as requested. See 2011 HRTO 302.
3This Interim Decision deals with a further Form 10 filed by the applicant on May 19, 2011, requesting other minor amendments to the narrative of the Application.
4In submissions filed May 31, 2011, the respondent consented to the further amendments to the Application requested by applicant.
5This Interim Decision also deals with a Request to Intervene (Tribunal Form 5) filed by the affected party Walter Scarrow on April 26, 2011.
6By correspondence with the Tribunal of April 28, 2011, the applicant advised that he takes no position with regard to the Form 5. The respondent did not file an objection. On the contrary, respondents' counsel's law firm also represents Mr. Scarrow.
AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION
7Tribunal Rule 1.7 states in part:
In order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may:
c) allow any filing to be amended;
8Given the consent of the parties, I find it is fair, just and expeditious to allow the amendment to the Application as requested.
REQUEST TO INTERVENE
9The affected party submits that he should be granted intervenor status in the Application because:
...he has the potential to be directly and significantly affected by the Tribunal's final decision. Specifically, Mr. Scarrow stands to potentially be displaced from the position of Fire Chief, a position he has now held for approximately two years.
10The applicant is seeking as a remedy, among other things, that he be given the position of the respondent's Fire Chief, a position which Mr. Scarrow was awarded following an employment competition. If the applicant is successful in his Application and request for remedy, Mr. Scarrow will obviously be affected.
11The Tribunal's Rule 11.1 provides:
The Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.
12The Tribunal has granted intervenor status to an incumbent employee in circumstances almost identical to the present Application. See Xu v. Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2010 HRTO 1009.
13In light of the potential effect on Mr. Scarrow, I find it is appropriate to grant him status as an intervenor at the hearing.
ORDER
14On consent of the parties, the Application will be amended as per the Tribunal Form 10 of May 19, 2011.
15The Request to Intervene is granted. The extent of Mr. Scarrow's participation in the hearing will be determined by the adjudicator who presides over those proceedings.
16A three (3) day hearing will be scheduled to determine the Application on its merits.
17I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of August, 2011.
"signed by"_________
Alan G. Smith Member