HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shirley Ziemendorf

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board

Respondent

-and-

Toronto Police Senior Officers’ Organization

Intervenor

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: May 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 947

Indexed as: Ziemendorf v. Toronto Police Services Board

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on January 19, 2011, alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of perceived disability.

2On February 19, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondent and the named affected party, Toronto Police Senior Officers’ Organization (“TPSOO”), the applicant’s union.

3On March 16, 2011, counsel for the Toronto Police Service Board wrote to the Tribunal indicating that the respondent identified in the Application, namely the Toronto Police Service, is not a legal entity. On March 17, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal amend her Application to reflect the proper name of the organizational respondent, specifically Toronto Police Service Board (“TPSB”).

4On March 28, 2011, TPSOO filed a request to intervene in this proceeding indicating that it represents the applicant as her bargaining agent.

5On April 4, 2011, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal confirming that she does not object to the TPSOO’s request.

6On May 3, 2011, respondent TPSB filed a Response wherein it requests that the Tribunal dismiss parts of the Application because certain aspects of the applicant’s allegations are 1.) outside of the one-year timeline of the Code and 2.) outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as issues of collective bargaining and not Code-related matters.

7On May 11, 2011, the applicant filed a Reply setting out the factual points that she disputes.

REQUEST TO AMEND NAME OF RESPONDENT

8The applicant’s request to amend the Application to reflect the proper legal name of the organizational respondent is granted. It is apparent that the applicant’s allegations pertain to her employment with the Toronto Police Service Board. Accordingly, the style of cause is amended to reflect the same.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

9As stated in Bettencourt v. Peel District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1644, a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the bargaining agent intervener status when requested. In accordance with the Tribunal’s standard practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by a union, TPSOO’s request to intervene is granted. The scope of TPSOO’s participation in the hearing on the merits will be decided by the adjudicator. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

DIRECTIONS

10Neither the applicant nor TPSOO have filed submissions in response to the TPSB’s request to dismiss parts of the Application because of delay and failing to allege a Code-related matter.

11As such, the Tribunal directs the applicant and the intervenor to provide written submissions and any legal authorities with respect to whether parts of the Application are outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal due to 1.) delay and 2.) the alleged facts fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. The applicant and the intervenor are directed to deliver to each other and to file with the Tribunal their written submissions and legal authorities within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision. Within seven days of receipt of applicant’s and the intervenor’s written submissions, the TPSB may file written reply submissions and any legal authorities.

12The Tribunal will consider the parties’ submissions and may determine issues and future steps accordingly.

13I am not seized of this matter.