Gayle v. City of Toronto, 2015 HRTO 284

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marcia Gayle

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto and Emese Kis

Respondents

-and-

COTAPSA Inc. (City of Toronto, Administrative, Professional, Supervisory Association Inc.)

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: March 10, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 284

Indexed as: Gayle v. Toronto (City)

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On December 23, 2014, COTAPSA Inc. (City of Toronto, Administrative, Professional, Supervisory Association Inc.) (hereinafter “the association”) filed a Form 5 Request to Intervene seeking to be added as an intervenor and indicating it intended to act as a support person for the applicant.

3The respondent did not file a formal response but in a January 27, 2015 e-mail, it raised concerns that the association appeared to be acting as a representative of the applicant and not as a support person. It asked that the association to clarify its role. The applicant responded that the association was involved and the parties should move on.

4Rule 11.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) 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. The Tribunal will determine the extent to which an intervenor will be permitted to participate in a proceeding.

5The Tribunal in Boyce v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2009 HRTO 131 at para. 13, has stated:

A union or association nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in a bargaining unit it represents when the application alleges discrimination in employment. Absent exceptional circumstances, the applicant’s bargaining agent will be granted intervention status in Tribunal proceedings where it requests it.

6The applicant is a member of the association and is entitled to representation by the association who assisted her in requesting workplace accommodation and in responding to the alleged termination of her workplace accommodation. The applicant is represented by the association. I see no reason to depart from the Tribunal’s established practice as stated in Boyce, above, to grant intervenor status in these circumstances.

order

7The union’s request to intervene is granted. The nature and extent of the union’s participation will be addressed by the hearing adjudicator in the event that the matter proceeds to a hearing.