HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christopher Karas
Applicant
-and-
École secondaire catholique Sainte-Famille
and Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Karas v. École secondaire catholique Sainte-Famille
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Proposed Intervenor
Gregory Ko, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to educational services contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The hearing on the merits of this Application is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2015.
2On March 17, 2015, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (“CCLA”) filed a Request to intervene. No party has yet filed a response to the Request to intervene since this response would be due on April 7, 2015, almost a week after the start of the hearing.
3For the reasons that follow the Request to intervene is denied.
INTERVENTION
4Rule 11.1 states:
11.1 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.
5In D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187, the Tribunal states at para 12:
In accordance with 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. Tribunal jurisprudence has articulated a number of factors for consideration in assessing a request for intervention:
i. Whether the intervenor has a significant interest or special contribution to make on the issues;
ii. Whether the intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided;
iii. Whether the intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties; and
iv. If intervention is appropriate, are there conditions that should be placed on the intervention.
See for example, Jeppesen v. Ancaster (Town) Fire & Emergency Services 2001 CanLII 26209 (ON HRT), 2001 CanLII 26209 (ON H.R.T.) and Forrester v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Service Board, 2005 HRTO 3.
6In Carasco v. University of Windsor, 2011 HRTO 630, the Tribunal found that the decision to grant an intervention request is discretionary.
7Having considered the Request, I find that it would be unfair to grant it since the hearing is scheduled to start in less than two weeks. In my view if CCLA is granted intervenor status this may result in prejudice to the parties and may delay the commencement of the hearing.
8I decline to grant CCLA intervenor status at this stage.
9I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 17th day of March, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair