Murad George v. Barney River Investment Limited, 2014 HRTO 359

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Murad George

Applicant

-and-

Barney River Investment Limited

Respondent

-and-

United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union Local 333

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 19, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 359

Indexed as: George v. Barney River Investment Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union Local 333, Proposed

Laurie Kent, Counsel

Intervenor

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether the Request to Intervene filed by the United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union Local 333 (the “Union”) should be granted, and to provide directions to the parties on managing the hearing of the merits of the Application.

2On April 29, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondent subjected him to discrimination and reprisals with respect to employment. He stated that he was a member of the Union at the time of the alleged discrimination and reprisals.

3On November 29, 2013, the Union filed a Request to Intervene.

4On December 2, 2013, the respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal, and raised a number of preliminary issues.

5On December 31, 2013, the applicant filed a Reply to the Response.

6Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a Response to the Union’s Request to Intervene, and the time for doing so has now passed.

7Rule 11.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine, and the Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.

8The Union’s Request to Intervene is granted. The Application raises issues that may affect it, and none of the other parties oppose the Request.

9The respondent declined to attend a mediation. In the circumstances, the Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a three-day hearing of the merits of the Application. The extent of the Union’s participation in the hearing and the preliminary issues raised by the respondent will be determined by the adjudicator who presides over the hearing.

10Finally, I have noted that Murad George v. Paragon Protection Limited, File No. 2013-14335-I, which deals with similar facts, is proceeding to mediation. If the mediation does not result in a settlement, the Tribunal may request submissions from the parties as to whether, pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules, the Tribunal should consolidate and hear the two Applications together. Alternatively, the parties may file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) to consolidate and hear the two Applications together.

11I am not seized of this matter.