McRoberts v. Dobozy, 2011 HRTO 190

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Julie McRoberts

Applicant

-and-

Tamas Dobozy and Lynn Shakinovsky

Respondents

-and-

Wilfred Laurier University Faculty Association

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 26, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 190

Indexed as: McRoberts v. Dobozy

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with: (1) the applicant’s request to add a respondent; (2) the applicant’s request for production of documents; and (3) the Wilfred Laurier University Faculty Association’s (“faculty association”) request to be added as an intervenor to this Application.

2The applicant filed her Application on March 8, 2010 alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and disability in the areas of services and employment, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended. Her Application deals with a period the applicant was a graduate student and teaching assistant at Wilfred Laurier University. The two named respondents were professors in the program.

3Subsequent to filing her Application, the applicant also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking to add “Wilfred Laurier University Staff” as a respondent to her Application. She also sought production of “any emails which Tamas Dobozy, Lynn Shakinovsky, or any other staff member may have since they are mentioned within the responses from the Respondents.”

4In addition, the faculty association has brought a Request to Intervene (Form 5).

Request to Add a Respondent

5As noted above, the applicant seeks to add an entity she calls “Wilfred Laurier University Staff” as a respondent to her Application. She does not explain who precisely is encompassed within that name or provide any rationale for why she wishes to add this named entity. She does make reference to attached emails as “evidence,” but it is not clear whether these emails contain the names of persons whom she feels are properly respondents or she is simply filing them with respect to the future hearing.

6In any event “Wilfred Laurier University Staff” is not a legal entity and cannot, therefore, be added as a respondent. The applicant’s request to do so is denied.

Request for Production

7It is difficult to determine whether the applicant is requesting all emails authored by the named individuals that might concern her or simply all emails reference in the Response. In any event, the applicant’s request is premature as this matter has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. Once the Notice of Hearing is sent to the parties, it will trigger certain disclosure and production requirements pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. These deadlines will be clearly set out in the Notice.

8If, after receiving the respondents’ disclosure, the applicant is concerned about missing documents, she may seek production at that stage.

Request for Intervention

9The faculty association’s Request to Intervene sets out the following basis for its request:

WLUFA is a bargaining agent for a bargaining unit which includes the two Respondents, Professor T. Dobozy and L. Shakinovsky. The application seeks the termination of the employment of the two Respondents. As the bargaining agent for the Respondents, WLUFA has an interest in any order the Tribunal may make that could affect their employment or their rights under the collective agreement, or that could impact on the rights of other WLUFA members. WLUFA has expertise in relation to the interpretation and administration of the collective agreement.

10The applicant does not oppose the intervention of the faculty association. In this case, the Application appears to raise issues that are of both specific and general interest to the faculty association. The faculty association’s request to intervene is granted. The extent of the faculty association’s participation in any future proceedings will be determined by the Vice-chair or Member who presides over those proceedings.

11I am not seized.