Sokoloski v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2011 HRTO 1976

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gloria Marie Sokoloski

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Attorney General and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Government Services

Respondents

-and-

Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: November 1, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1976

Indexed as: Sokoloski v. Ontario (Attorney General)

1In this March 2011 Application, filed under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of disability with respect to employment, by failing to provide her with a job which met her disability-related needs.

2This Interim Decision deals with the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario’s (“AMAPCEO”) Request to Intervene in the Application. It also addresses the respondents’ Request to Dismiss all or part of the Application on the basis that it raises certain issues which were settled by the respondent employer(s) and the applicant’s bargaining agent, AMAPCEO, pursuant to a policy grievance settlement in 2010.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

3AMAPCEO is the bargaining agent for certain employees of the respondents, including the applicant. AMAPCEO seeks to intervene in this proceeding on the basis that certain issues raised by the Application could affect the operation of the collective agreement between AMAPCEO and the employer, as well as an agreement relating to workplace accommodation, the Pilot AMAPCEO Employee Accommodation and Health Reassignment Process. AMAPCEO also submits that certain remedies sought by the applicant, such as, for example, changes to the respondents’ job competition process, could have broad ramifications for the rights of the applicant and other bargaining unit employees represented by AMAPCEO.

4Neither the applicant nor the respondents filed responses to the Request to Intervene.

5In my view, in light of the issues raised in the Application and the remedies sought, AMAPCEO, as the exclusive bargaining agent on behalf of employees of the respondents, including the applicant, has a sufficient interest in the proceeding to be granted intervenor status. None of the parties opposes the Request to Intervene. Accordingly, AMAPCEO is hereby granted leave to intervene in the proceeding.

6The precise nature and extent of the intervenor’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator assigned to hear the Application.

Request to Dismiss

7In their Response to the Application, the respondents submit that the Application raises issues concerning the respondent(s)’ Health Reassignment Process and redeployment approach which are subject to a grievance settlement between the respondent employer(s) and the intervenor. In light of the settlement, the respondents submit that the Tribunal ought to dismiss all or part of the Application on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to deal with the settled issues and/or that the substance of all or part of the Application has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding within the meaning of s.45.1 of the Code (“the Request to Dismiss”).

8The applicant opposes the Request to Dismiss on the basis that the settlement does not address her personal circumstances or deal with the issues raised in her Application.

9In my view, due to the potential complexity of the issue, it is appropriate for the Request to Dismiss to be dealt with by the adjudicator assigned to hear the Application.

10In the event that the intervenor wishes to make any submissions with respect to the respondents’ Request to Dismiss, it is hereby directed to deliver such submissions, in writing, to the other parties and to file them with the Tribunal within 28 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

ORDER AND DIRECTIONS

11In summary, the Tribunal orders as follows:

• AMAPCEO has leave to intervene in the proceeding. The precise nature and extent of the intervenor’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator assigned to hear the Application.

• If the intervenor wishes to make any submissions with respect to the respondents’ Request to Dismiss, it is directed to deliver such submissions, in writing, to the other parties and to file them with the Tribunal, within 28 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

• The adjudicator assigned to hear the Application will determine the respondents’ Request to Dismiss.

12I am not seized of this matter.