Aklilu v. Wirecomm Systems (2008) Inc., 2013 HRTO 1729

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Aklilu

Applicant

-and-

Wirecomm Systems (2008) Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Unifor

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri Price

Date: October 11, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1729

Indexed as: Aklilu v. Wirecomm Systems (2008) Inc.

1In this Application under s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of disability.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

2The applicant is employed by the respondent as a cable technician. In that employment, the applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by a trade union, Unifor (formerly the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada).

3Unifor has filed a Request to Intervene in the Application.

4Neither the applicant nor the respondent has responded to the Request to Intervene and the time for doing so has now passed.

5The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a bargaining agent such as Unifor nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of one of its bargaining units and that, absent exceptional circumstances, will be granted intervention status when it seeks it. See Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 at para. 13, and cases citing that decision. I see no reason in this case to depart from the Tribunal’s established practice regarding the granting of intervenor status when the applicant is represented by a trade union.

6Unifor’s Request to Intervene in the Application is granted.

REQUEST FOR EARLY DISMISSAL

7The respondent has sought early dismissal of the Application on the basis that the issues in dispute are within exclusive federal jurisdiction and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“the Request to Dismiss”). In particular, the respondent submits that the applicant is employed in an enterprise that is integral to a federally regulated telecommunications undertaking, namely Rogers Cable Communications Inc.

8In its Request to Intervene, Unifor has asked that it be given an opportunity to make submissions on the jurisdictional issues in this case. Accordingly, the Tribunal will give the intervenor an opportunity to make submissions on the respondent’s Request to Dismiss before determining it.

9Within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the Intervenor is directed to provide the Tribunal and the other parties with any written submissions it may wish to make with respect to the respondent’s Request to Dismiss.

10The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to respond to the respondent’s Request that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction by September 20, 2013. No submissions have been received from the applicant. Accordingly, unless the Tribunal receives submissions from the applicant on the jurisdictional issue within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal will make its decision on the respondent’s Request to Dismiss based on the information before it.