HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marc Dion
Applicant
-and-
Dr. Mahadeva Krishantha and Dr. Krishantha’s Office
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Dion v. Krishantha
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Marc Dion, Applicant
Self-represented
Dr. Mahadeva Krishanta and Dr. Krishantha’s Office, Respondents
Chantal Tourigny, Counsel
Introduction
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2Ms. Laurie Langman, who is an employee of the respondent, has filed a Request to Intervene.
3Neither the applicant nor the respondent has filed a Response to the Request to Intervene.
Request to Intervene
4Ms. Langman states that she is making this Request to Intervene because she is an individual who the applicant alleges engaged in discriminatory conduct. She denies the applicant’s allegations and she has an interest in ensuring that her reputation is not damaged. She is requesting to intervene to ensure that she has the opportunity to refute these allegations.
5In accordance with Rule 11 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may allow a request to intervene on any terms the Tribunal decides are appropriate. The Tribunal has set out a number of factors to consider when 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, should conditions be placed on the intervention?
See D.R. v. Upper Grand District School Board, 2011 HRTO 1187 and Carasco v. University of Windsor, 2011 HRTO 630.
6While the Tribunal has a broad discretion to grant intervention, I do not find that this it is appropriate to grant intervention to Ms. Langman in this Application.
7Ms. Langman is an employee of the respondent. The allegations made by the applicant pertain to her alleged acts while she was acting in the course of her employment. From a reading of the Response, it can be assumed that Ms. Langman will be called as a witness by the respondent. The Response indicates that the respondent denies the allegations made by the applicant that pertain to Ms. Langman’s alleged conduct.
8It is very common for the conduct of employees to be part of the allegations made in an application. Most often such employees are then called as witnesses and asked to testify about their version of the events alleged.
9Ms. Langman has not identified any assistance that she will provide the Tribunal which cannot be provided by the respondent through the evidence of his witnesses, including Ms. Langman, should she be able to give relevant evidence related to the merits of the Application if and when there is a hearing on the merits.
order
10The Request to Intervene is denied.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of September, 2017.
“Signed by”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair