Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Robert Paul Vigars Applicant
-and-
Thames Valley District School Board Respondents
-and-
Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: October 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1976 Indexed as: Vigars v. Thames Valley District School Board
APPEARANCES
Robert Paul Vigars, Applicant Andrew Camman, Counsel
Thames Valley District School Board, Respondent Peter J. Thorup, Counsel
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, Intervenor Patricia D’Heureux, 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 and also alleging reprisal or threat of reprisal. The Application was filed on August 31, 2010.
2On November 17, 2010, the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (the “Union”) filed a Request to Intervene, though the applicant had named it as a respondent. In its request, it submitted that it is not properly named as a respondent as it is not in an employment relationship with the applicant. It denied having discriminated against the applicant in any event and submitted that it should be granted intervenor status, as it will want to address any allegations that it discriminated against the applicant. It also submitted that it has a role to play in providing its expertise with regard to the applicable collective agreement.
3On June 3, 2011, counsel for the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, advising that he would file an amended Application by the end of the month.
4On November 29, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which he sought to amend his Application in order to allege that the Union discriminated against him in the area of membership in a vocational association. He attached Form 1-E, in which he repeated many of the allegations made in his original Application and states that the Union “did not do their duty of fairly representing me”.
5On February 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), directing that a summary hearing take place. The CAD directed that