Trevor Loxton v. P.G.I. Fabrene Inc., 2012 HRTO 1201

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Trevor Loxton

Applicant

-and-

P.G.I. Fabrene Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Northern Independent Union

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: June 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1201

Indexed as: Loxton v. P.G.I. Fabrene Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Trevor Loxton, Applicant

Self-represented

Northern Independent Union, Intervenor

Lindsay Lawrence, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of family status.

2The Northern Independent Union (“the union”) represents employees in the bargaining unit in which the applicant was employed. It asks to intervene to address remedial issues that may affect the operation of the collective agreement or its members’ rights under that agreement. The union also states that it participated in at least some of the applicant’s dealings with the respondent at the time the applicant states that he made requests for accommodation of family status. In addition to making submissions, the union would like to be able to call evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses called by the parties, although it undertakes to exercise any right to call evidence cautiously, and to not repeat evidence lead by other parties.

3The applicant responded to the union’s Request to Intervene. He disputes facts described by the union in its Request to Intervene, stating that the union did not help him, but the applicant does not appear to take a position, neither consenting to the Request nor opposing it. The respondent did not respond to the union’s Request.

4As stated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131, at paragraph 13:

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.

5The Tribunal’s general practice is to grant intervention status to a union which represents the applicant’s bargaining unit. See for example D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187, Oxley v. Vaughan (City), 2011 HRTO 1295, Yonis v. Newalto Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1352, Pak v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 1356, and the very recent Interim Decision in Daoust v. Health Services North, 2012 HRTO 278, and Stewart v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2012 HRTO 485. I see no exceptional circumstance to deviate from that practice here where it appears to me that the union’s participation might assist the Tribunal.

6The union is granted leave to intervene on the terms requested.