HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hugh Campbell
Applicant
-and-
City of Ottawa
Respondent
-and-
Ottawa Carleton Public Employees Union, Local 503
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Sherry Liang
Date: October 19, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 1888
Indexed as: Campbell v. Ottawa (City)
1This is an Application filed on June 2, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The Application concerns events that occurred in 2005 and 2006 in connection with the applicant’s employment. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions on the delay. Following receipt of those submissions, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1787, directing that it be served on the respondent and the applicant's union. I stated that if the respondent takes the position that the Tribunal should not accept the Application because of delay, the parties may be required to provide evidence on the issues of whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay
2Notice of the Application was sent to the respondent (the “City”) and to the Canadian Union of Public Employees Union, Local 503 (“CUPE”) on August 31, 2010.
3The Notice indicated that CUPE may file a Request to Intervene in the Application by October 5, 2010. It did not file a Request then.
4The respondent Requested that the Application be dismissed for delay. By Case Assessment Direction dated November 2, 2010, I waived the requirement that the respondent file a full Response, and directed a hearing to deal with the issue of delay in filing the Application.
5The hearing began before me on September 22, 2011, but did not finish on that date. It has been scheduled to continue on October 25, 2011.
6On October 7, 2011, CUPE filed a Request to Intervene in the Application. The City does not oppose the Request: the applicant does. The applicant submits that there is no added benefit to having CUPE take part in these proceedings as the City has summonsed a witness, who was counsel for CUPE at the relevant times, to give evidence. Further, the applicant objects to the timing of this Request, stating that CUPE has known of the issues raised by this Application for some time. The applicant requests that if the Tribunal permits CUPE to intervene, that limits be placed on its role in these proceedings, and also that the applicant be allowed to communicate with his counsel regarding any new documentation submitted by CUPE.
7I am concerned with CUPE’s delay in making this Request to Intervene. However, balanced against that is the possibility that its interests may well be affected by my determinations in this Application. Its interests are not simply those associated with being the applicant’s bargaining agent. The applicant has alleged, in effect, that poor or misleading advice by CUPE and its agents was responsible for his good faith delay in bringing his Application to the Tribunal. In these circumstances, I find it fair to permit CUPE to participate in these proceedings.
8However, I make no determination at this point on the scope of its participation. CUPE must file any documents it intends to rely on at the hearing, as well as written statements of any evidence it wishes to introduce through a witness. The parties may speak to the relevance and admissibility of any of this evidence on the date set for the continuation of the hearing.
9Once this material has been received and reviewed by the other parties, they may also address at the hearing any measures necessary to allow the applicant to have a reasonable opportunity to discuss any new evidence or intended evidence with his counsel.
10I therefore direct as follows:
CUPE will be allowed to intervene in this Application;
CUPE must provide the other parties and the Tribunal with any documents it will rely on and statements describing the evidence of any witness it intends to call, by 12 p.m. on Friday, October 21, 2011;
The scope of CUPE’s participation will be addressed at the continuation of this hearing;
I will make further directions at the hearing if necessary regarding the applicant’s ability to review any new evidence or intended evidence with his counsel.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of October, 2011.
”signed by”________
Sherry Liang
Vice-chair