Jason Federow v. The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2014 HRTO 496

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jason Federow

Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and Canadian Union of Public Employees

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle Date: April 9, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 496 Indexed as: Federow v. Niagara Falls (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jason Federow, Applicant

Civita Gauley, Counsel

The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls, Respondent

Trent Dark, Representative

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Respondent

Mona Staples, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s initial request for the Tribunal to defer consideration of his Application; the Union’s request to intervene; and the request by the City of Niagara Falls for further particulars.

3In his Application, the applicant indicated that he had also filed a grievance with respect to issues addressed in the Application. Initially, he requested that this Application be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance process. Following the filing of his Application, however, the applicant and the respondents Canadian Union of Public Employees (the “Union”) and the City of Niagara Falls (the “City”) wrote to the Tribunal, advising that the grievance process was complete. The City provided a copy of the March 10, 2014 arbitral decision dismissing the grievance. Accordingly, there is no longer any reason for the Tribunal to defer its consideration of this Application.

4On March 6, 2014, the Union filed a Request to Intervene. The Tribunal has received no Response to this request from the applicant or from the City.

5In its Request, the Union states that it is seeks to intervene as an interested party, as the remedies sought by the applicant could affect the employees in its bargaining unit and would be subject to the terms of its collective agreement. In particular, it seeks to have standing to participate in the process, including the ability to participate in mediation and pre-hearing discussions, and to lead evidence, cross examine and make submissions at the hearing.

6The Union’s Request for Intervenor status is denied. The Application names the Union as a respondent. In these circumstances, it is evident that the Union will have full standing as a party, including the ability to participate in mediation and pre-hearing discussions, and to lead evidence, cross examine and make submissions at the hearing.

7Given the above-noted request, it appears that the Union may not have appreciated the fact that it has been named as a respondent in this Application. It has not filed a Response, as it is required to do. Accordingly, the Union is directed to file its Response to this Application within 14 days of this Interim Decision.

8On March 7, 2014, the City filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) in which it seeks further particulars from the applicant prior to being required to file its Response. On March 21, 2014, the applicant provided his Response to the RFOP, providing further particulars.

9The further particulars provided by the applicant appear to provide sufficient information to enable the City to understand the case it has to meet and to put it in a position of being able to file its Response. Accordingly, the City is directed to file its Response with the Tribunal within 14 days of this Interim Decision.

ORDERS

10The Tribunal directs as follows:

1. The Tribunal will not defer consideration of this Application;
2. The Union’s request for status as an intervenor is denied;
3. The Union and the City are directed to file their Responses to this Application within 14 days of this Interim Decision.