Renouf v. Georgian Bay General Hospital, 2013 HRTO 389

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debby Renouf

Applicant

-and-

Georgian Bay General Hospital

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3157

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: March 7, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 389

Indexed as: Renouf v. Georgian Bay General Hospital

APPEARANCES

Debby Renouf, Applicant

Click here to enter text.Self-represented

Georgian Bay General Hospital, Respondent

Andrew N. Zabrovsky, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3157, Intervenor

Gavin Leeb, Representative

Introduction

1This is an is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request to Intervene (“Request”) filed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3157 (“CUPE”).

2CUPE seeks to intervene “to protect the collective agreement and to ensure the integrity of the accommodation process”. It says that it has knowledge of the workplace and history of the applicant’s employment and has expertise regarding terms and conditions of employment at the employer. “The union has supported the applicants efforts to be accommodated in the workplace, and has been involved in several discussions in relation to the applicants employment at the employer”.

3Neither the applicant nor the respondent has responded to the Request, and the time for doing so has elapsed. The Tribunal indicated in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131, that:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

4I agree that CUPE has the requisite interest in this Application and the union is accordingly granted leave to intervene. In regard to the scope of CUPE’s intervention, this is best left to the Vice-Chair or Member of the Tribunal who is assigned the merits hearing. The parties will have the opportunity to make submissions as to the appropriate scope of the intervention.

5I am not seized of this matter.