Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Wilbur Nixon
Applicant
-and-
The Good Neighbours’ Club and Lauro Monteiro
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: Nixon v. The Good Neighbours’ Club
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Wilbur Nixon, Applicant
Self-represented
The Good Neighbours Club and Lauro Monteiro, Respondents
Robert B. Budd, Counsel
CUPE, Respondent
Ryan Goldvine, Representative
1This Interim Decision addresses whether the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 2289-05 (“the union”) should be added as a respondent.
2The Application alleges discrimination in employment because of race, colour ancestry and ethnic origin. The Application named the applicant’s former employer and the employer’s Director of Operations as respondents. The Application alleges that the applicant was subjected to discriminatory comments by the personal respondent and by members of the corporate respondent’s club and that the corporate respondent ignored his complaints of discrimination.
3The respondents filed a Response in which they deny the allegations. The respondents note that the applicant had filed a grievance with respect to the same issues as gave rise to the Application. The grievance was however withdrawn. In the Response, the respondents argue that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application because it deals with issues covered by the collective agreement. In the alternative, the respondents state that the union should be severally and jointly liable for any allegations made by the applicant.
4The Response was delivered to the union which in turn filed a Response. The union’s Response notes that the Application made no allegations respecting the union and that there are no allegations which, if true, could result in a finding as against the union.
5In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, the Tribunal set out three questions that are typically asked in a case where a party seeks to add a respondent to the Application:
(1) Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?
(2) If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?
(3) Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?
6In this case, there do not appear to be any allegations made that could support a finding that the union violated the Code. There do not appear to be any factors that would suggest that it is necessary, appropriate or fair to add the union.
7For these reasons, the respondent’s request that the union be added as a respondent is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2012.
Signed by
Brian Cook
Vice-chair