Donald Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2011 HRTO 651

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Donald Williams Applicant

-and-

Toronto Transit Commission, Lori MacGregor and Nick Valente Respondents

-and-

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 5, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 651 Indexed as: Williams v. Toronto Transit Commission

1The applicant filed an Application on June 28, 2010, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of the applicant’s association with an individual protected by the Code.

2On October 29, 2011, the applicant’s union filed a Request to Intervene. The union seeks to intervene in this Application because the applicant and a named personal respondent are both members of the union and, as their bargaining agent, the union has an interest in the Application. The union indicates that, in particular, it is concerned with respect to the applicant’s allegations regarding assignment of over-time shifts.

3On November 17, 2010, the respondents filed their Response, wherein they make the following three preliminary requests:

(i) The Application be dismissed in its entirety because it was triggered by and is based upon confidential and improperly obtained information, or alternatively, that the paragraphs in the Application relating to the confidential and improperly obtain information be struck;

(ii) The alleged prohibited ground of reprisal be struck from the Application; and

(iii) The personal respondents be removed as respondents from the Application.

4On December 1, 2011, the applicant filed his Reply; however, the applicant did not make any submissions regarding the union’s Request to intervene and did not address all of the respondents’ preliminary issues.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

5In accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by the union, the union’s Request to intervene is granted. The style of cause is amended to add the union as an intervenor

DIRECTIONS

6Neither the applicant nor the union has filed any submissions with respect to the respondents’ request to dismiss and other preliminary issues.

7In these circumstances, it is appropriate to receive submissions from the parties with respect to all three of the preliminary issues raised by the respondents. The Tribunal directs as follows:

• Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents are directed to file with the Tribunal and deliver to the applicant and union, any additional submissions, documents and legal submissions with respect to the three preliminary issues and, in particular, to identify the jurisprudence relied upon regarding the issues of confidentiality and the rule of implied undertaking;

• Within 14 days of receipt of the respondents’ materials, the applicant and the union are directed to file written submissions, any supporting documents and legal authorities with the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, regarding the three preliminary issues;

• If the respondents wish to file written submissions in reply, any reply submissions may be filed within 7 days from receipt of the applicant’s and the union’s materials;

8The Tribunal will consider the parties’ submissions, and may determine any of the preliminary issues based on the parties’ written submissions, and/or may schedule future steps. Accordingly, the mediation scheduled for April 27, 2011 is postponed.

9I am not seized.