Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Pauline Lac Seul Applicant
-and-
Shibogama First Nations Council and Cathy Kiepek Respondent
-and-
Denise Workun Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: July 7, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 896 Indexed as: Lac Seul v. Shibogama First Nations Council
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Shibogama First Nations Council and Cathy Kiepek, Respondents Robert Edwards, Counsel
Denise Workun, Intervenor Self-represented
1A preliminary hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2016 by teleconference. This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene filed by Denise Workun, counsel who represented the applicant during her settlement negotiations with the respondent.
2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). She also alleged that the respondents reprised against her within the meaning of the Code.
3The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same subject matter of the Application and to proceed with a hearing would amount to an abuse of process. By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”), the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held to hear submissions in relation to the respondent’s request to dismiss.
4On June 28, 2016, Denise Workun filed a Request to Intervene (“Request”) on the basis that she was the applicant’s lawyer at the time the settlement was entered into.
5The applicant did not respond to the Request. The respondent did not oppose the Request but took the position that the Tribunal should only grant the intervenor the right to file written submissions to ensure that there is no delay or adjournment of the preliminary hearing.
Analysis
6Under 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.
7Tribunal 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
8Considering these factors, I find that it is appropriate to grant intervenor status to Ms. Workun. In particular, I find that it is appropriate to grant her intervenor status because she may have relevant information to provide in relation to the settlement that was arrived at between the applicant and the respondent in this case.
9I note that, to the extent that Ms. Workun has expressed a concern that her professional reputation may be affected by the Tribunal’s decision in this matter, it should be noted that the Tribunal has a practice of not including information about third parties unless it is relevant to the Decision. If Ms. Workun had not filed her Request to Intervene, her name would never have been mentioned in any Tribunal decision.
Order
10Ms. Workun’s Request to Intervene is granted. At this point, her intervention rights are limited to providing either (1) oral submissions at the preliminary hearing teleconference scheduled for July 15, 2016 or (2) filing written submissions by July 15, 2016 in relation to the issues to be dealt with in the preliminary hearing.
11The Tribunal Registrar shall deliver to Ms. Workin a copy of the Application, the Response, the Tribunal’s March 10, 2016 CAD and the May 10, 2016 Notice of Preliminary Hearing. Although the applicant and respondents have filed other documents and correspondence with the Tribunal, I find that the materials listed in the previous sentence are sufficient to enable Ms. Workun to intervene in the preliminary hearing.
Dated at Toronto, this 7th day of July, 2016.
“Signed By”
Jo-Anne Pickel Vice-chair```