James v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1794

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mark James Applicant

-and-

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board Respondent

-and-

Waterloo Regional Police Association Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist Date: September 20, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1794 Indexed as: James v. Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mark James, Applicant Ayoob Khan, Representative

Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board, Respondent Donald Jarvis, Counsel

Waterloo Regional Police Association, Intervenor Caroline Jones, 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”). The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin and marital status. This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request to remove a personal respondent and a request from the Waterloo Regional Police Association (“WRPA”) to intervene.

2On June 14, 2012, the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Police Services Board, the institutional respondent, and the named personal respondent filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to remove the personal respondent as a party to the Application. The respondents submit that the Application does not raise allegations against the personal respondent, whatsoever. They submit that the applicant states in his Reply that he did not intend to cite the personal respondent as a party and agrees to the removal of the personal respondent.

3On June 14, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating he was confirming that he consented to the removal of the personal respondent.

4The respondents’ request to remove the personal respondent as a party is allowed given that the applicant states in his Reply that that he did not intend to name the personal respondent as a party but rather mentioned her name as a contact person for the institutional respondent. The applicant further states he is not opposed to the removal of the personal respondent. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

5On May 11, 2012, the WRPA filed a Request to Intervene. The WRPA is the applicant’s exclusive bargaining agent. The WRPA submits that as the applicant’s bargaining agent it has a substantial and continuing interest in the issues raised and the remedies being sought by the applicant in his Application.

6On June 1, 2012, the institutional respondent wrote to the Tribunal to state that it did not oppose the WRPA’s request to intervene. It did indicate that it reserved the right to make submissions regarding the terms (including without limitation the scope of participation rights and document production to be granted to the WRPA) upon which the WRPA should be granted intervenor status.

7On June 11, 2012, the applicant filed a Response opposing the WRPA’s Request to Intervene. The applicant submits that, to date, the WRPA has not intervened or assisted the applicant in pursuing his claims that the institutional respondent violated the applicant’s rights under the Code. The applicant submits that the WRPA refused to provide the applicant with legal funding in relation to pursuing his rights under the Code. The applicant submits that this refusal was discriminatory given that the WRPA provided members of other colour, place of origin and ethnic origin with funding for external legal proceedings. The applicant submits that the applicant is contemplating making a request to add the WRPA as a respondent to his Application based on the WRPA’s treatment of the applicant. The applicant submits that given these circumstances the WRPA should not be added as a non-party intervenor.

8The WRPA’s Request to Intervene is granted. A union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the bargaining agent intervenor status when requested. See, for example, Marc-Ali v. Graham, 2010 HRTO 1321.

9I do not find the applicant’s allegations that the WRPA has not assisted him, that the WRPA has discriminated against him and that the applicant might request to add the WRPA as a respondent to his Application constitute exceptional circumstances. The WRPA has not been named a party to the present Application. The contention that there may be issues between the applicant and the WRPA does not, in my view, take away from the fact that the WRPA, as the applicant’s bargaining agent, may have a substantial and continuing interest in the issues raised and the remedies being sought by the applicant in his Application.

10The Application is presently awaiting scheduling for a hearing. The extent and nature of the WRPA’s participation at the hearing will be determined by the Tribunal member assigned to hear the Application.

11I am not seized of this matter.