Dombroskie v. Veyance Technologies Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 647

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stanley Dombroskie

Applicant

-and-

Veyance Technologies Canada Inc. and Ian McPhee

Respondents

-and-

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers), Local 189

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: May 6, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 647

Indexed as: Dombroskie v. Veyance Technologies Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Stanley Dombroskie, Applicant

Self-represented

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and

Service Workers International Union

Shaheen Hirani, Counsel

(United Steelworkers), Local 189,

Respondent/Proposed Intervenor

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address whether (1) the Application should be dismissed against certain respondents, and (2) the Request to Intervene filed by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (United Steelworkers), Local 189 (the “union”) should be granted.

2On November 22, 2013, the applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment and in contracts because of his disability, marital status, and age.

3On March 6, 2014, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) Against Certain Respondents, which informed him that the Application as against certain of the named respondents (Oncidium Health Group and the union) appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fail to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by those two organizations. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions to explain how each of those two organizations is alleged to have breached the Code.

4On April 1, 2014, the applicant filed written submissions, which stated that he agreed with the Tribunal’s NOID. Accordingly, the Application against Oncidium Health Group and the union is dismissed. The Application against Veyance Technologies Canada Inc. and Ian McPhee will continue in the Tribunal’s process. The title of proceeding shall be amended accordingly.

5On April 10, 2014, the union filed a Request to Intervene. None of the parties filed a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

6Rule 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.

7The union’s Request to Intervene is granted. The Application raises issues that may affect it, and none of the parties oppose the Request. The extent of the union’s participation in the hearing will be determined by the adjudicator who presides over the hearing.

8The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. The Application against Oncidium Health Group and the union is dismissed.

2. The union’s Request to Intervene is granted.

9I am not seized of this matter.