HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Grazyna Prokurat
Applicant
-and-
GTA Medical Imaging Corporation o/a Lighthouse Medical Imaging and
Sanjoy Kundu
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Prokurat v. GTA Medical Imaging Corporation o/a Lighthouse Medical Imaging
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Grazyna Prokurat, Applicant
Jean-Alexandre De Bousquet, Counsel
CML Health Care Inc. o/a LifeLabs LP, Proposed Intervenor
Daniel Attwell, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene filed by CML Health Care Inc. o/a LifeLabs LP (“CML”). I also address the timeliness objections raised by the respondents in their Response.
2In the Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that her disability and need for accommodation were factors in the respondents’ decision not to hire her when the corporate respondent purchased two clinics formerly owned and operated by her former employer, CML.
3In their Response, the respondents named CML as an affected party. The respodents deny the allegations contained in the Application. In their Response, they also took the position that, under the Purchase Agreement entered into between the corporate respondent and CML, it is CML that is responsible for any liabilities related to the applicant’s employment.
CML’s Request to Intervene
4Pursuant to its usual practice, the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Application and Response to CML since it was named as an affected party. CML then filed a Request to Intervene in the Application (“Request”). In its Request, CML submitted that it is not a proper party (respondent) to these proceedings as the Application relates to alleged discriminatory hiring practices by the respondents and not the termination of the applicant’s employment with CML.
5CML requested the right to intervene if the Tribunal intends to make a determination regarding any of the three following issues:
a. any allegations of discrimination raised by the applicant against CML or any of its employees;
b. any allegations that CML is liable for any discriminatory actions or inactions of the respondents; and
6the interpretation of the Purchase Agreement, or any part thereof, entered into between CML and the corporate respondent.The applicant opposed CML’s Request. She agreed that CML is not a proper party to these proceedings and submitted that the Tribunal should not exercise any power to add CML as a party. She confirmed that she will not proceed against CML in this matter. As such, the applicant submits that the Tribunal should dismiss CML’s Request on the basis that there is nothing useful that CML could add as an intervener.
7The respondents did not respond to CML’s intervention request and the time for doing so has now passed.
Analysis
8I find that it is not appropriate to grant CML intervenor status for the reasons set out below.
9Under Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may allow a person or organization to intervene in any case at any time on such terms as the Tribunal may determine.
10Tribunal jurisprudence has articulated a number of factors for consideration in assessing a request for intervention:
a. Whether the intervenor has a significant interest or special contribution to make on the issues;
b. Whether the intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided;
c. Whether the intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties; and
d. If intervention is appropriate, are there conditions that should be placed on the intervention.
See D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187 at para. 12
11As noted above, CML has sought to intervene if the Tribunal intends to address any of the three issues identified in para. 5 above. With respect to the first issue, the applicant has confirmed that she will not proceed against CML in this matter. Moreover, I agree with CML and the applicant that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to add CML as a respondent since the applicant has not alleged any discrimination by CML in this case. A human rights application represents the commencement of a legal proceeding by the applicant, and it is up to the applicant to identify the respondents against whom she wishes to proceed. See Hildebrandt v. Queen’s University, 2015 HRTO 998.
12The two other issues identified by CML both relate to whether CML is liable under the Purchase Agreement for any liabilities relating to the applicant’s employment that would arise if the Tribunal were to find a breach of the Code in this case. This issue is one that relates to the contractual enforcement of the Purchase Agreement entered into between the corporate respondent and CML. In my view, that is not an issue for this Tribunal to determine.
13For these reasons, CML’s Request to Intervene is denied.
Timeliness Objections
14In their Response, the respondents submitted that the Application should be dismissed as untimely. They submit that the applicant filed her Application after the expiry of the one year time period contained in s. 34 of the Code. The applicant submitted that the Application is not untimely because, among other things, she only discovered the alleged Code violation within the one year time period.
15In my view, the Tribunal will have to hear evidence from the applicant at a hearing on the merits before it can determine the respondents’ timeliness objection. As such, I find that the adjudicator assigned to hear this case on its merits should address the respondents timeliness objection after hearing evidence in the case.
order
16For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal orders as follows:
a. CML’s Request to Intervene is denied; and
b. The respondent’s timeliness objections will be heard by the adjudicator assigned to hear the case on its merits after having heard evidence in the case.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of October, 2015.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair