HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Douglas Cardinal
Applicant
-and-
Rogers Communications Inc., Major League Baseball, and Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Ltd. Partnership
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Date: August 8, 2017
Citation: 2017 HRTO 1015
Indexed as: Cardinal v. Rogers Communications Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sid Knowles, Proposed Intervenor
Self-represented
Douglas Cardinal, Applicant
Monique Jilesen, Counsel
1This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene (“Request”) filed by Sid Knowles.
2The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him because of ancestry, colour, and ethnic origin contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him due to the use of the team name and logo used by the Cleveland Indians Baseball club during baseball games at the Rogers Centre in Toronto.
3By Request filed July 5, 2017, Mr. Knowles requested permission to intervene in this proceeding. He claimed to have knowledge of international human rights instruments and stated that he had a right to ensure that the Tribunal complies with international human rights standards.
4The applicant opposed Mr. Knowles’ Request. None of the respondents responded to the Request and the time for doing so has passed.
5In further correspondence dated July 24, 2017, Mr. Knowles asserted that he believes that the Tribunal is infringing his right to receive information. He claimed the Tribunal would benefit from his pointing out that he believes that the Tribunal is violating his human rights by dealing with this Application. As far as expertise, Mr. Knowles claimed that he as a great deal of working knowledge about international human rights and how they operate. He also expressed his view that I should have dismissed Mr. Cardinal’s complaint in Interim Decision, 2017 HRTO 570, and claims that my failure to do so suggests either bias or incompetence.
Analysis and Finding
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.
7The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has articulated a number of factors for consideration in assessing a request for intervention:
Whether the intervenor has a significant interest or special contribution to make on the issues;
Whether the intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided;
Whether the intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties; and
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 not appropriate to grant intervenor status to Mr. Knowles. Despite his claim of “having a working knowledge about international human rights and how they operate”, I am not persuaded that Mr. Knowles has any special contribution to make to the issues raised in this case. I am also not persuaded that he is likely to provide any assistance to the Tribunal that will not already be provided by all three respondents in this case.
9To the extent that Mr. Knowles is concerned about freedom of expression, this is an issue that has already been raised by the Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Ltd. Partnership and I expect to receive submissions from this respondent in relation to the issue of freedom of expression. Finally, while it appears that Mr. Knowles is displeased with my Interim Decision denying the respondents’ requests to dismiss this case, that does not provide him with the kind of interest, experience or expertise that is necessary to be granted intervention status before this Tribunal.
Order
10For the above reasons, Mr. Knowles’ Request to Intervene in this case is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of August, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair