Kaleem Rehman v. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Sharon Schnarr and Don Beitz, 2013 HRTO 1916

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Kaleem Rehman Applicant

-and-

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Sharon Schnarr and Don Beitz Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1883 Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: November 20, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1916 Indexed as: Rehman v. Waterloo (Municipality)

APPEARANCES

Kaleem Rehman, Applicant Self-represented

The Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Sharon Schnarr and Don Beitz, Respondents Bonnea Channe, Counsel

1On March 4, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging that the respondents infringed his rights under the Code.

2The applicant is employed by the respondent municipality. In that employment, the applicant is a member of a bargaining unit represented by a trade union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1883 ("CUPE").

3CUPE filed a Request to Intervene in the Application in May 2013.

4This Interim Decision confirms that a November 18, 2013 summary hearing in this matter was adjourned on consent in order to give CUPE notice of the hearing; and determines CUPE's Request to Intervene in the Application.

ADJOURNMENT OF SUMMARY HEARING

5In July 2013, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing would be convened in this matter, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis of delay and/or on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed.

6The Tribunal advised the respondents and the applicant that the summary hearing would take place on November 18, 2013. Unfortunately, due to a clerical error on the Tribunal's part, which did not come to my attention until the eve of the hearing, notice of the summary hearing was not given to CUPE, whose Request to Intervene was still outstanding.

7At the outset of the November 18, 2013 summary hearing, I sought the applicant's and the respondents' submissions on whether the summary hearing should be adjourned in light of the fact that CUPE had not been given notice of the hearing. The respondents submitted and the applicant agreed that the hearing should be adjourned. Accordingly, the November 18, 2013 summary hearing was adjourned on consent in order to give CUPE notice of the summary hearing.

8The Registrar will contact the parties regarding the rescheduling of the summary hearing.

REQUEST TO INTERVENE

9In my view, it is fair, just and expeditious to determine CUPE's Request to Intervene at this time. I note that neither the applicant nor the respondents responded to CUPE's Request to Intervene and the time for doing so has passed.

10The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a bargaining agent such as CUPE 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.

11CUPE's Request to Intervene in the Application is granted. The nature and extent of CUPE's participation in the summary hearing and/or in any hearing on the merits of the Application will be determined by the adjudicator assigned to the hearing.

12I am not seized of this matter.