Brenda Hildebrandt v. Queen's University, 2015 HRTO 998

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brenda Hildebrandt

Applicant

-and-

Queen’s University

Respondent

-and-

United Steelworkers

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 27, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 998

Indexed as: Hildebrandt v. Queen’s University

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Brenda Hildebrandt, Applicant

Robert Tarantino, Counsel

Queen’s University, Respondent

George Avraam, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Tribunal add the applicant’s union, the United Steelworkers, as a respondent to this Application.

2By Application filed August 22, 2014 the applicant alleges that the respondent, her employer, discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). In particular, she alleges that the respondent discriminated against her when it failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability and failed to permit her to return to work when she was medically cleared to do so.

Respondent’s Request to add United Steelworkers as Respondent

3By Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) filed on July 3, 2015, the respondent requested that the Tribunal add the United Steelworkers as a respondent on the basis that it allegedly prevented the respondent from implementing a reasonable form of accommodation without explanation. Specifically, the respondent alleges that the union refused to consent to the applicant’s placement on the redeployment list.

4The applicant opposed the respondent’s Request. In her Response to the respondent’s RFOP, the applicant stated that she has made no allegations against her union and that it has been supportive of her request for accommodation and return to work. She also claims that the union did consent to her placement on the redeployment list.

Analysis

5The Tribunal has the power to add parties to an Application in appropriate circumstances. In Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1513, the Tribunal held that it should consider the following three questions when determining a request to add a respondent:

1. Are there allegations made that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Code?

2. If the proposed respondent is an individual and an organization is also named, is there a compelling reason to include him or her as a respondent?

3. Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to add the proposed respondent?

6I note that Smyth was a case where an applicant requested that respondents be added to an Application. Nevertheless, the factors set out in Smyth are useful for considering a respondent’s request to add another respondent.

7Applying the factors set out in Smyth, I find that it is not appropriate to add the Unites Steelworkers as a respondent to this Application. It is clear from the applicant’s Response to the RFOP that she is not making any allegations against her union. Therefore there are no allegations by the applicant that could support a finding that the United Steelworkers discriminated against her.

8In my view, if the respondent intends to submit that it is not responsible for the alleged discrimination in this case because the union refused to consent to the implementation of a reasonable form of accommodation, it may do so by calling evidence to support that position. The respondent is free to call evidence to support its claim that the union refused to consent to the applicant’s placement on the redeployment list. It is not necessary for the union to be named as a respondent in order for the respondent to call this evidence.

9Overall, I find that adding the union would not be fair in light of the applicant’s clear opposition to adding it as a respondent. 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.

10As a final point, I note that the timing of the respondent’s RFOP is an additional reason to deny its Request. The Application is at an advanced stage as a hearing is scheduled for September 28 and 29, 2015. In my view, the addition of the union as a respondent at this stage would unduly and unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

ORDER

11For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s Request to add the United Steelworkers as a respondent is denied.

12I am not seized of this matter.