Peggy Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board, 2012 HRTO 2146

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Peggy Harrypersad

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board

Respondent

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1628

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: November 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2146 Indexed as: Harrypersad v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peggy Harrypersad, Applicant

Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Respondent

Roy Filion, 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 ancestry, colour, creed, ethnic origin, place of origin and race. This Interim Decision deals with a Request to Intervene filed by the affected party which has not yet been dealt with as well as a Request for Order During Proceeding filed by the respondent seeking clarification of the nature of the dispute between the parties and the scope of the issues to be dealt with at the hearing scheduled to begin on February 12 and 13, 2013.

THE APPLICATION

2In her Application the applicant alleges that she has experienced discrimination in employment on the grounds set out above. In particular the applicant alleges that she was not successful in a job competition in September 2010. The applicant alleges that when she asked why she was not successful in the job competition she was not given a "definite answer". The applicant also alleges that she did not receive a performance evaluation in 2010. The applicant alleges that she was unsuccessful in a further job competition in January 2011.

3The narrative of the Application also contain allegations with respect to the approach taken to a grievance filed by the applicant in respect of the September 2010 job competition by her bargaining agent but these are not issues in dispute in this case.

THE REQUEST TO INTERVENE

4The affected party has filed a Request to Intervene. It is and was the applicant's bargaining agent. Neither the applicant nor the respondent have responded to the Request to Intervene.

5As the Tribunal noted in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances the applicant's bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

6As this Applicant relates to one or two job competitions the union's interest, particularly as it relates to possible remedy, is obvious. In all the circumstances including no opposition expressed by the other parties the Request is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.

7The extent and the nature of the intervenor's participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

THE REQUEST OF THE RESPONDENT

8As indicated above this Application, filed in August 2011 relates to one or two job competitions in which the applicant was unsuccessful. The respondent responded to it on September 28, 2011 and the applicant filed her Reply on November, 1, 2011. An unsuccessful mediation took place in June, 2012. The hearing is scheduled to begin on February 12 and 13, 2013.

9The Request of the respondent flows from an email the applicant has apparently sent to it on October 5, 2012. As of this writing neither the Tribunal or the intervenor have seen this email which the applicant has characterized as a second Reply.

10The respondent takes the position that the applicant is seeking to amend the Application with the inclusion of new allegations at a late stage of the proceeding. The respondent also states that some of these new allegations are untimely and/or relate to other cases which have settled.

11Having reviewed the applicant's Response to the respondent's Request it does appear that the applicant may be seeking to expand the nature of the issues in dispute in this Application. However without the email containing the new allegations/amendments which the applicant now wishes to pursue there is no basis to say more.

ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS

12The Tribunal makes the following Orders and Directions:

a. The Request to Intervene is granted and the style of cause amended accordingly.

b. The applicant is directed to deliver and file a copy of the October 5, 2012 email within 7 days of the date of this Interim Decision failing which the issues to be dealt with at the hearing will be those set out above in paragraph 2;

c. If the intervenor wishes to make any submissions on the issues raised by the respondent's Request for Order above, it will deliver and file them within 7 days of receiving the October 5, 2012 email.

13I am not seized of this case.