Jason Herman v. GM Canada – CAMI Assembly and its Agents, 2013 HRTO 567

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Herman

Applicant

-and-

GM Canada – CAMI Assembly and its Agents

Respondent

-and-

Canadian Auto Workers

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: April 8, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 567

Indexed as: Herman v. GM Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jason Herman, Applicant Self-represented

GM Canada – CAMI Assembly and its Agents, Respondent David J. Bannon, Counsel

Canadian Auto Workers, Intervenor Keith Osborne, Representative

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.

2This Interim Decision deals with a request to amend an Application and a request by a union to intervene.

Request to amend

3On November 6, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) with a view to amending his Application to add certain allegations. A review of the allegations indicates that the applicant may be claiming reprisal for the purposes of the Code, as well as adding particular allegations related to the respondent employer’s alleged duty to accommodate.

4The respondent has not responded to the Request and the time for doing so has elapsed. The respondent has, however, filed additions to its Response to deal with the more recent allegations.

5The applicant’s request to amend is granted.

Request to intervene

6A Request to Intervene (“Request”) was filed by the Canadian Auto Workers’ Union - Canada (“Union”) on January 23, 2013. Neither party to this Application has responded to the Union’s Request and the time for doing so has elapsed.

7The Union has indicated that it wishes to address its “efforts to establish and compel the accommodation of the applicant in relation to his disability and the barriers that were experienced”. It notes that the accommodation of union members “is of significance to the Union” and that “Union Representatives know the workplace and may be in a position to provide evidence of which the applicant may not be aware or that has relevance to the proceedings”. The union seeks to be present at any events involving the applicant.

8The 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.

9I am satisfied that the Union has the requisite interest in this Application and the Union is accordingly granted leave to intervene. The scope of the Union’s intervention at any hearing that may be held may be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

ORDER

10The Application is amended to add the allegations set out in the applicant's request dated November 6, 2012.

11The union is added as an intervenor, and the style of cause will be amended accordingly. The union will be given notice of events involving the applicant.

12The parties have indicated willingness to attempt a mediated settlement. The registrar will contact the parties and the intervenor to arrange a date for mediation.

13I am not seized of this matter.