Syed Hussain v. Ottawa Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1808

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Syed Hussain

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Police Services Board

Respondent

-and-

Andrew Berry

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 25, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1808

Indexed as: Hussain v. Ottawa Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Andrew Berry, Intervenor

Bill Cole, Representative

1This is an Application dated May 21, 2012 and filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed and age.

2In brief, the applicant applied for the position of Evaluation and Research Coordinator with the respondent. The applicant was granted an interview for this position. In late January 2012, he was notified that he was not the successful candidate. He made an informal complaint with the respondent, which was reviewed and confirmed the respondent’s hiring decision. The applicant believes that he experienced discrimination on the grounds alleged primarily based upon a comparison of his qualifications and experience to the successful candidate, Andrew Berry, who is a younger White male. As part of the remedy sought, the applicant seeks instatement to the Evaluation and Research Coordinator position.

3By Interim Decision dated September 19, 2013 (2013 HRTO 1582), I directed the respondent to provide the Application, Response and my decision to Mr. Berry in order to put him formally on notice of this proceeding and to give him an opportunity to request to intervene.

4By Request to Intervene dated and filed on October 4, 2013, Mr. Berry requested intervenor status in this proceeding on the basis that his interests were at issue in the proceeding given that the applicant is seeking instatement to the position he occupies. Given the pending hearing dates in this matter, the time for the parties to respond to Mr. Berry’s Request to Intervene was abridged to October 15, 2013. To date, neither party has filed any response or objection.

5The Tribunal has granted intervenor status to an incumbent employee in circumstances where the remedy sought may affect her or his position: see Xu v. Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2010 HRTO 1009; Gazankas v. Municipality of Red Lake, 2011 HRTO 1497.

6In light of the potential effect of this proceeding on Mr. Berry, I find it is appropriate to grant him status as an intervenor at the hearing. As in the Gazankas case, which is a hearing over which I presided, I hereby grant Mr. Berry status to cross-examine witnesses, call evidence, and make submissions on issues relevant to his personal interests. If Mr. Berry intends to present evidence at the hearing, then he shall disclose to the other parties and file with the Tribunal a summary of each witness’ proposed evidence (including any witness evidence he may propose to provide himself) and a copy of any documents upon which he intends to rely, within 14 calendar days of the date of this Interim Decision.

ORDER

7For the above reasons, I hereby make the following order:

a. Andrew Berry shall be granted intervenor status in this proceeding, with the status to cross-examine witnesses, call evidence, and make submissions on issues relevant to his personal interests; and

b. If Mr. Berry intends to present evidence at the hearing, he shall disclose to the other parties and file with the Tribunal a summary of each witness’ proposed evidence (including any witness evidence he may propose to provide himself) and a copy of any documents upon which he intends to rely, within 14 calendar days of the date of this Interim Decision.