Michael Giftopoulos v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, 2014 HRTO 51

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Michael Giftopoulos Applicant

-and-

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: January 13, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 51 Indexed as: Giftopoulos v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

Written Submissions

Michael Giftopoulos, Applicant Harry Kopyto, Representative

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, Respondent Kate Dearden, Counsel

OECTA, Intervenor Jerrry Raso, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene filed by the applicant’s union, Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (“OECTA”), and the applicant’s request to amend his Application.

Request to Intervene

2OECTA brought its Request to Intervene (Form 5) on June 5, 2013, after being served with the Application. Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a Response to this request and the time for so doing has passed.

3The Tribunal has found on numerous occasions that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member. When the request is unopposed, absent exceptional circumstances, the union will be granted intervention status when it so requests it.

4Accordingly, OECTA is granted leave to intervene. The scope of OECTA’s intervention will be determined by the adjudicator hearing the matter.

Request to Amend

5The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to amend his Application to include broader public interest remedies. The (then) proposed intervenor filed a Response to the Request (Form 11) indicating that it was not opposed to the amendments, while the respondent filed a Response opposing the amendments on the basis that they would greatly add to the length of the hearing.

6This issue is best left to the adjudicator hearing the matter in light of the possible adjudicative resource implications. Among other things, the adjudicator will be in the best position to determine whether the bifurcation between the merits and remedial portions of the case would address this potential concern.