Bodnar v. Oakville (Town), 2014 HRTO 535

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Bodnar

Applicant

-and-

Town of Oakville and Hania Ellison

Respondents

-and-

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1329

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 14, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 535

Indexed as: Bodnar v. Oakville (Town)

1The applicant filed an Application under section 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 was filed on November 28, 2012, and the applicant alleges September 25, 2010 as being the date of the last incident upon which the Application is based. The applicant was represented in the workplace by the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1329 (“the union”).

2The respondents have filed a Response in which, amongst other issues, they allege that the Application is untimely and that the personal respondent should be removed as a respondent.

3Previous Case Assessment Directions have been issued by the Tribunal identifying the delay issue and seeking the applicant’s submissions about delay. The applicant filed submissions as well as supporting material in relation to the Case Assessment Directions.

4Following mediation, the Tribunal issued a letter dated November 13, 2013, in which it stated that a hearing would be scheduled to address the issue of delay as well as the removal of the personal respondent (“the preliminary hearing”). That preliminary hearing is scheduled for April 23, 2014, pursuant to a Notice of Preliminary Hearing dated January 14, 2014, and only those issues will be addressed on that day.

5The union filed a Request to Intervene (“the request”) which remains outstanding. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have filed a Response to the request and the time for doing so has elapsed.

6The Tribunal has held in many cases that a union almost always has an interest in participating in the Tribunal’s proceedings. See, for example, Heaney v. Toronto (City), 2014 HRTO 46 at para. 4. In addition, in this case, it appears that the union filed a grievance which it then withdrew.

7Accordingly, the union is added as an intervenor and the style of cause if amended accordingly.