Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Yong Xian Li Applicant
-and-
Toronto General Hospital Respondent
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5001 Intervener
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir Date: April 3, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 684 Indexed as: Li v. Toronto General Hospital
1This is an Application filed December 29, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to consider the Request to Intervene (Request) made by the applicant's union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5001 (the "union"), and to deal with the issue of whether it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of another related proceeding. The respondent has not filed a Response.
REQUEST TO INTERVENE
2In this Application the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of a disability. The applicant alleges that his employment was terminated while he was on a medical leave.
3The union is the bargaining agent for employees in the applicant's workplace. The Tribunal, therefore, gave notice of the Application to the union. The union filed its Request on March 2, 2012.
4The applicant opposed the Request on the basis that the union completely mishandled the grievance filed on his behalf.
5The respondent did not respond to the Request.
6The union seeks to intervene in accordance with Rules 11.2 and 11.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure. The union has a significant interest in the outcome of the Application, including the remedial orders requested by the applicant. The union's request to intervene is granted. The extent and the nature of the union's participation in the proceeding will be determined at the appropriate stage.
DEFERRAL
7A Notice of Intent to Defer (NOID) pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration related to some or all of the issues raised in the Application was sent to the parties on February 2, 2012.
8The applicant did not respond to the NOID nor did the respondent. The union advised that the grievance referred to in the Application has been settled on the basis that the applicant be reinstated to his employment amongst other terms. The applicant has objected to the settlement and did not return to work. He was subsequently dismissed from his employment on January 6, 2012. The applicant did not ask that the union file a grievance of the January 6, 2012 dismissal. The union states that so far as it is aware there is no other proceeding in process to which this Application should be deferred.
9In all of the circumstances and in the absence of a submission from any party that this Application should be deferred there appears to be no reason to exercise the discretion to do so at this stage.
10The respondent is directed to file its Response to the Application within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 3^rd^ day of April, 2012.
"signed by"
__________________________________
David Muir Vice-chair