David Killeen v. Soncin Construction, 2012 HRTO 1063

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Killeen

Applicant

-and-

Soncin Construction

Respondent

-and-

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: May 29, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1063

Indexed as: Killeen v. Soncin Construction

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

David Killeen, Applicant

Jennifer Charlton, Representative

Soncin Construction, Respondent

Paula Rusak, Counsel

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Intervenor

Giuseppe Agostino, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on January 11, 2012 under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect employment on the ground of disability.

2The respondent filed a Response on March 27, 2012 denying the allegations and submitting that some of the disputed issues have been addressed by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”).

3On March 28, 2012, the applicant’s union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 (the “union”) filed a Request to Intervene.

4On March 30, 2012, the applicant filed a response indicating that it has no objection to the union’s request to intervene.

5On April 26, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing indicating that this matter is scheduled for hearing on December 3 and 4, 2012.

6On May 3, 2012, the applicant’s representative filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) stating that she has been recently retained by the applicant and seeking an extension of time to file the applicant’s Reply. The applicant’s representative notes that the extension of time is required in order to receive and review the Application, to determine if any amendments are necessary and to file a Reply.

7The respondent did not file a response to the applicant’s Request.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

8As the Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

9As such, and in 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 scope of the union’s participation in the hearing will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the Application.

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

10The Tribunal is committed to the fair, just and expeditious resolution of matters before it. The respondent has not identified any prejudice that would be caused by granting the applicant’s request for additional time. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the applicant a two week extension of time to file her Reply.

ORDERS

11The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The union is granted intervenor status and the style of cause is amended to reflect the same; and
2. The applicant is granted an extension of time of 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file Reply.

12I am not seized of this matter.