HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
G. Robert Schottlander
Applicant
-and-
The Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board and Niagara Regional Police Service
Respondents
-and-
Niagara Regional Police Association
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Schottlander v. The Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
G. Robert Schottlander, Applicant
Self-represented
The Regional Municipality of Niagara Police Services Board and Niagara Regional Police Service, Respondents
Woodward B. McKaig, Counsel
Niagara Regional Police Association, Respondent
Leanne McClay, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Interim Decision in respect of an Application 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 disability. The Application also alleges reprisal. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address a Request to Intervene (“Request”) filed by the Niagara Regional Police Association (“NRPA”), the applicant's collective bargaining agent.
2The NRPA ”takes no position on the allegations made by the applicant”. It states that the outcome of the Application may affect other members of the bargaining unit as well as the administration of the collective agreement, and that the allegations and any remedy that may flow from them might be the subject of a future grievance. The NRPA wishes to be copied with materials relating to the Application, attend all proceedings and make submissions with respect to the issue of remedies. It indicates that it may request more expensive participatory rights, “if the applicant amends his pleadings”.
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 the NRPA has the requisite interest in this Application and the Association is accordingly granted leave to intervene. In regard to the scope of the NRPA’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.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of April, 2013.
”signed by”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair