HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Elizabeth Campbell-Alldis Applicant
-and-
Workers Health and Safety Centre Federation c.o.b. as Workers Health and Safety Centre Respondent
-and-
Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 343 Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: August 1, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1503 Indexed as: Campbell-Alldis v. Workers Health and Safety Centre
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Elizabeth Campbell-Alldis, Applicant George Brown, Representative
Workers Health and Safety Centre and Dave Killham, Respondents David P. Jacobs, Counsel
Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 343, Intervenor Glenn Wheeler, Representative
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). She alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate her after she experienced symptoms as a result of what she alleges was mould in the workplace. In her Application, the applicant advises that the facts of her Application are also part of an ongoing proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”).
2This Interim Decision addresses the following procedural issues: (1) the respondent’s request to remove the individual respondent; (2) a request to intervene by the applicant’s union; (3) the respondent’s request for a summary hearing; and (4) the Tribunal’s request for written submissions on the possible deferral of this Application to the WSIB proceeding.
Decision
Removal of Individual Respondent
3The applicant consents to this request. It would appear that the individual respondent was acting in the capacity as representative for the organizational respondent, as opposed to in a personal capacity, at the time of the events raised in this Application. Accordingly, this request is allowed and Dave Killham is removed as a respondent to this proceeding. The style of cause is amended accordingly.
Intervention
4The applicant was a member of Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, Local 343 (“COPE”), which filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) on December 22, 2011. The applicant and respondent have not filed a Response to the Request and the time for so doing has passed.
5The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of one of its bargaining units and that, absent exceptional circumstances, will be granted intervention status when it so requests it.
6Moreover, given COPE’s involvement with the applicant concerning the accommodation of her disability, it may be able to assist the Tribunal in determining some of the issues before it. Accordingly, COPE is granted leave to intervene. Should the Application proceed to hearing, the scope of COPE’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.
Summary Hearing
7The respondents’ Request for Summary Hearing (Form 26) is denied. Rule 19A.5 states:
Upon review of the Request and any Response to the Request, the Tribunal will determine whether to hold a summary hearing on the question of whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application will succeed. The Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision to hold or not a summary hearing following a party’s request.
8Many of the respondents’ concerns about the applicant’s ability to prove her case can be raised before the adjudicator in the event that a hearing on this matter is scheduled.
Deferral
9The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.
10Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer having regard to the nature and status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.
11In light of the proceedings the applicant states are ongoing before the WSIB, the Tribunal is seeking the parties’ written submissions on deferral. To assist the Tribunal, the parties are asked to advise the Tribunal what issues, if any, are currently before the WSIB and at what stage in the proceedings these issues are being considered.
Order
12In sum, I have made the following orders/directions:
a. The individual respondent, Dave Killham, is removed as a party to this Application and the style of cause amended accordingly.
b. COPE is added as an intervenor to these proceedings. The scope of COPE’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.
c. The respondent’s request for a summary hearing is denied.
d. The parties are directed to provide written submissions on the issue of deferral on the following schedule: the applicant’s submissions are due three weeks from the date of this Interim Decision, and the respondent’s one week from the receipt of the applicant’s submissions.
13I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of August, 2012.
Signed by
Naomi Overend Vice-chair