Lori Ann McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., 2013 HRTO 185

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lori Ann McLean

Applicant

-and-

Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc.

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4807

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 1, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 185 Indexed as: McLean v. Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Riverside Health Care Facilities Inc., Respondent(s) Christopher Hacio, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4087, Intervenor Dave Steele, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant works in a unionized workplace and is a member of Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4087 (“CUPE”).

2Initially, the applicant named CUPE as a respondent to her Application, but following a summary hearing, the Application was dismissed against CUPE by an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 842, dated April 24, 2012. Shortly thereafter, CUPE filed a Request to Intervene (Form 5) on May 9, 2012. The applicant did not file a Response to the Request and the time for so doing has passed.

3The respondent, however, did file a Response to the Request to Intervene. It is not clear from its Response whether the respondent opposes the Request, or is simply concerned that CUPE is asking to represent the applicant in this proceeding. There is nothing in CUPE’s Request that would indicate that its intention was to represent the applicant; indeed, CUPE subsequently wrote a letter clarifying that it was not its intent to represent the applicant.

4The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a union 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 requests it.

5Accordingly, CUPE is granted leave to intervene. In the event that the Application proceeds to hearing, the scope of CUPE’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

6In its submissions on the Request to Intervene, the respondent notes that it had previously requested that the Application be dismissed on the basis that any dispute between the applicant and respondent “must be resolved pursuant to the Collective Agreement in question and cannot be separately initiated as a Human Rights Compliant.” This request has not been put in a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10). I would note, parenthetically, that the Tribunal has taken jurisdiction in many workplace disputes where the applicant was unionized and the workplace subject to a collective agreement.

7I am not seized of this matter.