Schembri v. METROLINX, 2015 HRTO 9

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jonathan Schembri Applicant

-and-

METROLINX and Robert Brown Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

Helen Schembri Applicant

-and-

METROLINX and Robert Brown Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eva Nichols Date: January 5, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 9 Indexed as: Schembri v. METROLINX

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Amalgamated Transit Union, LOCAL 1587 ) Ian J. Fellows, Counsel

1These are two Applications alleging discrimination based on goods, services and facilities on the grounds of (a) disability and (b) association with a person identified by a ground listed above, namely disability, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19 as amended. These Applications were filed with the Tribunal on September 20, 2013.

2This Interim Decision is issued in anticipation of the hearing in this matter, which is scheduled for January 27, 2015 in Toronto.

3On December 20, 2013, the representative of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587 (the “Union”), requested intervenor status at the scheduled hearing. The individual respondent, Robert Brown, is a member of this bargaining unit. This was filed in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 11.

4The Union had stated that it wished to receive all materials filed in this Application and to participate in any scheduled mediation. Beyond that, it stated that that the extent of its intervention may be determined by the Vice-chair or member presiding at the scheduled hearing.

5Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a response to this request.

6A Union representative participated in the mediation on April 4, 2014. Following the mediation, a Registrar’s letter informed the Union that its intervenor status will be considered following the mediation, if no settlement was reached.

7It is the Tribunal’s established practice to grant intervenor status to a trade union in an application involving one of its members, whether the member is the applicant or a named respondent, and where the outcome of the Application may affect other members of the trade union or the trade union itself. See Kell v Andruski, 2012 HRTO 207 at para 19 and Junejo v Peel (Regional Municipality) 2009 HRTO 998 at para 5.

ORDER

8The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1587, is granted intervenor status at the upcoming hearing on January 27, 2015. I shall determine the extent of the Union’s participation at the hearing, when it comes to the consideration of any proposed remedies, which may have an impact on the members of the bargaining unit.

9Any further communication among the parties and to and from the Tribunal is to be copied to the counsel for the named Union.