Stewart v. Ontario Provincial Police, 2012 HRTO 485

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Terrie A. Stewart

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police and

Matthew LeBlanc

Respondents

-and-

Ontario Provincial Police Association

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith

Date: March 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 485

Indexed as: Stewart v. Ontario Provincial Police

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ontario Provincial Police Association, ) James A. Girvin, Counsel

Interested Party )

BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed on June 8, 2011, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination on the basis of sex and family status in employment.

2On October 28, 2010, the applicant’s bargaining agent, the Ontario Provincial Police Association (“OPPA”) filed a Request to Intervene in the Application.

3To date the parties have filed no submissions with regard to OPPA’s request to intervene.

ANALYSIS

4The OPPA is seeking to intervene on the basis that it has an interest in the outcome of the litigation. The Association represents the applicant in the workplace as the applicant’s exclusive bargaining agent. The OPPA explained its Request on the following basis:

…while collective bargaining and labour contract administration are a priority for the Association, an equally important role for the Association is to promote a healthy and safe work environment for all members. The employer has only recently adopted an internal workplace, discrimination and harassment prevention policy and we are very concerned about how they have operationalized the policy, the investigations, and follow-up and restoration of complaints.

5The Tribunal’s Rule 11.1 of its Rules of Procedure provides that:

The Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.

6As stated by the Tribunal in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 at para. 13:

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.

7Pursuant to Boyce, above, the Tribunal’s established practice where an applicant is a member of a bargaining unit is to grant intervenor status when requested by the union or association. See for example D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187, Oxley v. Vaughan (City), 2011 HRTO 1295, Yonis v. Newalto Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1352 , Pak v. Toronto (City), 2011 HRTO 1356 and the very recent Interim Decision in Daoust v. Health Services North, 2012 HRTO 278.

8Having reviewed the Application, Response and Reply, it appears that the OPPA has a significant interest in the allegations and that its members may be impacted by the potential factual findings. The union may be able to offer a unique perspective on the facts and be in a position to provide specific information about the facts and issues different from that which will likely be put forward by the parties. As such, I believe that the OPPA’s participation may assist the Tribunal in achieving a more fulsome understanding of the factual and legal issues.

9In sum I find that it would be fair, just and expeditious to permit the OPPA to intervene in this Application.

ORDER

10The OPPA is granted intervenor status and the style of cause is amended accordingly. The extent and the nature of the Association’s participation in the proceeding will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

11I am not seized.