HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kathyrn Lichty
Applicant
-and-
Waterloo Region Grand River Transit
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Lichty v. Waterloo Region Grand River Transit
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on June 26, 2009 alleging discrimination with respect to employment and goods, services and facilities on the ground of disability. The applicant, who had been off work since October 2004 due to a disability, alleges that the respondent discriminated against her when it terminated her collective agreement benefit entitlements on June 30, 2008. The respondent has filed a Response.
2Pursuant to a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing dated June 20, 2011 ("the hearing notice"), a hearing outside of Toronto has been scheduled for December 1, 2011. The parties have delivered to each other and filed with the Tribunal their Rule 16 and 17 disclosure requirements.
Applicant's Request for Order During Proceedings
3The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") on October 18, 2011. In the RFOP, the applicant requests an extension of time, and a copy of the tape recording from the mediation that was conducted by the Tribunal. The respondent has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.
4The Tribunal does not normally tape record mediations and there is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the mediation conducted by the Tribunal in this Application was tape recorded. Accordingly the applicant's request for the tape recording is denied.
5It is unclear for what reason the applicant is seeking an extension of time. It appears from the documentation that she attached to her RFOP that in September 2011 she advised the Tribunal's scheduling department that she had not received a copy of the hearing notice. The Tribunal's scheduling department sent an email dated September 7, 2011 advising that it appeared that due to administrative error, the applicant's email address was misspelled when the hearing notice was initially issued in June 2011 and that the hearing notice did not get to her in June 2011. The Tribunal attached the hearing notice to its September 7, 2011 email. It appears that in the RFOP the applicant asserts that the respondent and the union had 2 months' advance notice of the hearing, which gave them additional time to prepare that she did not receive.
6In these circumstances I am satisfied that the applicant has had sufficient notice of the December 2011 hearing date. Other than asserting that the respondent and the union had additional time to prepare, the applicant has not asserted or established that she is somehow unable to adequately prepare for the December 1, 2011 hearing date. In fact, as noted above, the applicant has complied with her Rule 16 and 17 disclosure obligations.
The Union as an Affected Party
7The applicant is a bargaining unit employee and was represented in the workplace by CAW Local 4304 ("the union"). While it has been named as an affected person and has received notice of the hearing, it has not filed a Request to Intervene and, as such, has not been granted intervenor status. As it does not have intervenor status, the parties have no obligation to deliver their Rule 16 and 17 disclosure requirements to the union.
8The applicant has forwarded to the Tribunal, the respondent and the union several email exchanges between she and the union dated November 8, 2011. In one of those emails, the union's recording secretary writes to the applicant, "As mentioned in our last telephone conversation and my email to you, CAW Local 4304 will be sending representation to the Dec 1 Hearing. I am planning on attending...".
9In her November 8, 2011 5:47 pm email to the Tribunal, the respondent and the union, the applicant notes that this is the first time since the hearing notice was issued in June 2011 that the union "wants to be involved".
10It is unclear from the emails whether the union has agreed to represent the applicant or attend the December 2011 hearing as an affected party. The union is directed to email the parties and the Tribunal within three days of the date of this Interim Decision, clarifying whether it will be representing the applicant at the hearing or attending as an affected party. If it intends to attend as an affected party, it is also directed to deliver to the parties and file with the Tribunal a Request to Intervene within three days of the date of this Interim Decision as well as any documentation or facts upon which it intends rely at the hearing. In many cases the Tribunal has found that a union almost always has an interest in an application brought by a bargaining unit member and that, absent extraordinary circumstances, it will be granted intervenor status when it so requests it. See, for example, Bishop v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1988.
11If the union files a Request to Intervene, the parties will have three days from receipt of the Request to Intervene to file a Response to the Request to Intervene. The Tribunal will consider the Request to Intervene and Responses to the Request to Intervene and may issue further case directions.
Order
12The Tribunal orders that:
The applicant's request for production of an alleged tape recording from the Tribunal's mediation is denied;
The applicant's request for an extension of time is denied;
Within three days from the date of the Interim Decision, the union is directed to:
a) email the parties and the Tribunal as to whether or not it is representing the applicant or seeks to attend the hearing as an affected party; and
b) if the union intends to attend the hearing as an affected party, to file a Request to Intervene and any documentation or facts upon which it intends to rely.
- Within three days of receipt of the union's Request to Intervene, if filed, the parties are directed to file Responses to the Request to Intervene.
Dated at Toronto, this 9^th^ day of November, 2011.
"signed by"
Alison Renton
Vice-chair