Muhammad Khalid and Salman Khalid v. The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, 2014 HRTO 600

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Muhammad Khalid Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Salman Khalid Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga Respondent

-and-

National Council of Canadian Muslims Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: April 29, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 600 Indexed as: Khalid v. Mississauga (Corporation)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Muhammad Khalid and Salman Khalid, Applicants Kate Sellar, Counsel

The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, Respondent Brian Wasyliw, Counsel

National Council of Canadian Muslims, Intervenor Faisal Bhaba, Counsel

1These Applications allege discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicants identify themselves as Muslim and state that they attend Friday prayers at the ISNA Canada Centre ("ISNA") located at 2200 South Sheridan Way in Mississauga. Salman Khalid received a parking ticket when he parked on nearby Finfar Court rather than the ISNA parking lot, which the applicants state can be difficult to get in and out of when it is busy. There is no dispute that parking is prohibited on Finfar Court between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The applicants assert that this prohibition discriminates against Muslims. The respondent states that the prohibition is necessary to address traffic congestion and safety concerns created when visitors to the ISNA park on Finfar Court to attend Friday prayers and denies that it is discriminatory.

3On April 4, 2014, the National Council of Canadian Muslims ("NCCM") filed a Request to Intervene. The NCCM states that it wishes to address whether the parking prohibition created by the respondent violates section 1 and/or section 11 of the Code. NCCM submits that it wishes to address the issue of remedy only to the extent of the public interest component. NCCM states that it is a national, non-partisan, independent, broad-based organization built from within the Muslim community that has a significant interest in these Applications and will provide assistance to the Tribunal regarding the issues involved. NCCM submits that it has become aware that parking restrictions can create barriers for participation in religious activities at mosques. NCCM submits that municipalities should consider how the regulation of parking can impact on protected religious activity and should consult with the affected individuals. NCCM submits that it will rely only on the facts alleged and evidence adduced by the parties. NCCM submits that it seeks to make oral and written submission, which it submits will be distinct from the applicant's. NCCM submits that it does not seek to call evidence, but requests permission to cross-examine witnesses, which permission would be used sparingly.

4The respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order on April 21, 2014 in which it opposes NCCM's request. The respondent submits that NCCM does not meet the criteria for adding an intervenor. The respondent submits that NCCM's position will mirror the applicant's. Further the respondent submits that NCCM has made only a broad statement of its interests in protecting the civil rights of Canadian Muslims and that it will not bring any independent viewpoint to the process. The respondent submits that the applicant is represented by counsel through the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. Accordingly, the respondent submits that NCCM's proposed participation is unnecessary and will prolong the hearing for no reason. The respondent also submits that its witnesses should not be subject to repetitive cross-examination.

Analysis and Decision

5Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may grant intervention status to an organization that complies with the requirements of Rule 11 and will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding. In exercising its discretion, the Tribunal is generally guided by the following non-exhaustive considerations:

(a) whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of rights of the parties to the proceeding;

(b) whether the applicant has a significant interest in the issue on which intervention is sought; and

(c) whether the applicant is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided.

See Jeppersen v. Ancaster (Town), [2001] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 1, and Carasco v. University of Windsor, 2011 HRTO 630.

6I am satisfied that NCCM has a significant interest in the issues arising in this Application. NCCM submitted that its participation would be helpful, but did not state how its participation is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided. In particular, NCCM did not state why allowing it to cross-examine witnesses would be helpful or necessary, given that the applicant is represented by counsel. Allowing NCCM to cross-examine would be potentially repetitive and would undoubtedly lengthen the hearing. Consequently, it is in my view appropriate to limit the scope of NCCM's intervention to making written and oral submissions.

Order

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. The Request to Intervene is granted, but NCCM's intervention shall be limited to making written and oral submissions following the completion of evidence.