HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robin Cooper Applicant
-and-
City of Toronto Respondent
-and-
Toronto Civic Employees’ Union. Local 416 Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 4, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1325 Indexed as: Cooper v. Toronto (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Robin Cooper, Applicant Self-represented
Toronto (City), Respondent Kerry Kitchura, Counsel
Toronto Civic Employees’ Union. Local 416, Intervenor Ryan Goldvine, Counsel
Introduction
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 disability. Pursuant to a Direction of the Tribunal the respondent has not yet filed a Response to the Application.
2This Interim Decision deals with a number of preliminary matters raised by the parties.
Request to Intervene
3The Toronto Civic Employees’ Union. Local 416 (the “union”) filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) seeking to intervene in this Application. Neither the applicant nor the respondent has responded to this Request. The applicant is or was an employee of the respondent City. He is or was in a bargaining unit represented by the union. The union filed a grievance on behalf of the applicant although that matter has since concluded. The union states that it seeks to intervene to protect the Collective Agreement in the workplace and to ensure the integrity of the grievance and arbitration process.
4The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The union has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial orders requested by the applicant. The union’s request to intervene is granted.
Request to Re-active/Dismiss
5This Application was deferred by 2011 HRTO 841 pending the outcome of grievances filed by the union related to the issues raised in this Application. The applicant and respondent City have both requested that the Application be re-activated pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. It appears that the grievance proceedings have concluded.
6The Application is re-activated pursuant to Rule 14.
7In a Request for Order During Proceeding filed on April 27. 2012 (Request) the respondent seeks alternatively that the Application be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with by a grievance arbitration, or, that it be dismissed pursuant to Rule 19.1 because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent also argues that some of the allegations in the Application are out of time and should be dismissed.
8The Code and the Tribunal’s Rules provide that an application within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction can only be dismissed after the parties have been afforded an opportunity to make oral submissions. I find that the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of proceeding is to schedule a hearing by teleconference for oral submissions on the issues raised in the respondent’s Request filed on April 27, 2012.
9The Tribunal makes the following Directions:
a. The Registrar will schedule a half day preliminary hearing by teleconference for oral submissions on the respondent’s Request;
b. The union is directed to provide its submissions, if any, in response to the respondent’s Request within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of July, 2012.
Signed by
__________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair