Kelly v. Huang, 2017 HRTO 1291

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shannonn Kelly

Applicant

-and-

Jingjing Huang

Respondent

-and-

Orbis Canada

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1291

Indexed as: Kelly v. Huang

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Orbis Canada, Intervenor

Pavle Masic, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with Orbis Canada’s Request to Intervene in this proceeding.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, with this Tribunal, which alleged that the respondent subjected her to discrimination and reprisal. The respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination and reprisal. At all relevant times, both parties worked for Orbis Canada.

3Following the parties’ filing of pleadings, Orbis Canada filed a Request to Intervene in this proceeding. Neither party filed a Response to the Request, and the time for doing so has now passed.

4Pursuant to 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.

5The Tribunal has set out a number of factors for consideration in assessing a Request to Intervene:

1. Whether the intervenor has a significant interest or special contribution to make on the issues;

2. Whether the intervenor is likely to provide assistance to the Tribunal that will not otherwise be provided;

3. Whether the intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties; and

4. 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

6Orbis Canada’s unopposed Request to Intervene in this proceeding is granted. In view of the fact that both parties worked for Orbis Canada, I am satisfied that the Request to Intervene meets the first two factors set out above. With respect to the third factor, I have no concern that Orbis Canada’s intervention will unduly delay, disrupt or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties. The title of proceeding is amended accordingly.

7The adjudicator assigned the hearing will determine whether any conditions should be placed on Orbis Canada’s intervention.

8The Tribunal makes the following orders:

1. Orbis Canada’s Request to Intervene in this proceeding is granted. The title of proceeding is amended accordingly.

2. The adjudicator assigned the hearing will determine whether any conditions should be placed on Orbis Canada’s intervention.

9I am not seized of this matter.