Kushnier v. Carpenter's Local 1256 Employee Trust Funds, 2017 HRTO 1036

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Matthew Kushnier

Applicant

-and-

Carpenter's Local 1256 Employee Trust Funds and Ron Carlton

Respondents

-and-

533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: August 11, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1036

Indexed as: Kushnier v. Carpenter's Local 1256 Employee Trust Funds

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals, Intervenor

Rebecca Liu and Daphne Fedoruk, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene (Form 5) filed by 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals.

background

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the respondent terminated his employment because he was too young.

3The respondent filed a Response naming 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals as an affected person. The Tribunal served the pleadings on 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals, advising that 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals could file a Request to Intervene.

4On December 19, 2017, 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals filed a Request to Intervene, seeking non-party status in this Application. 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals submitted that it is a staffing and job placement agency that employed the applicant and referred him to a placement with the respondent.

5The applicant and respondent have not filed any position with respect to the Request to Intervene, and the time for doing so has passed

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 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals because it has a significant interest in this proceeding given that it is the entity that:

1. was responsible for dispatching the applicant to work for the respondent;

2. dealt with the respondent’s complaints about the applicant prior to the termination of the applicant’s employment with the respondent; and

3. dealt with the applicant in finding subsequent work.

9I am also satisfied that 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals would likely provide some assistance to the Tribunal with respect to the facts and context to the applicant’s employment with the respondent.

order

10For the above reasons, 533670 Ontario Ltd o/a Express Employment Professionals’ Request to Intervene is granted. The scope of their participation will be determined by the adjudicator assigned to hear the case on its merits.