Shelley Leach v. County of Renfrew Ontario Works, 2017 HRTO 955

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Shelley Leach

Applicant

-and-

County of Renfrew Ontario Works

Respondent

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: July 27, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 955 Indexed as: Leach v. County of Renfrew Ontario Works

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of the Attorney General, Intervenor

Don Pyper, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the Request to Intervene (“Request”) filed by the Ministry of the Attorney General (“Ministry”) in this case.

2In her Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of her disability and reprised against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant’s main allegation is that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her the Guide Dog Benefit available under the Ontario Works legislation. She has also made a number of other allegations of discrimination and/or harassment in her Application. The Tribunal has directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

3In its Request, the Ministry seeks to intervene in relation to the Guide Dog Benefit issue. It submits that it has an interest in this issue as it involves legislation and policy established by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Neither the applicant nor the respondent responded to the Request.

Analysis and finding

4Under 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.

5Tribunal 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.

6Considering these factors, I find that it is appropriate to grant intervenor status to the Ministry in relation to the Guide Dog Benefit issue in this case. The Ministry has a significant interest in this issue and a special contribution to make since the issue arises from government legislation and policy. I do not think the Ministry’s intervention will unduly complicate or delay the summary hearing that has been directed in this case.

order

7For the reasons set out above, the Ministry’s request to intervene is granted. The intervention will be limited to the Guide Dog Benefit issue in this case.

8The Tribunal Registrar shall deliver to the Ministry a copy of the Application, the Response, the Reply, the Tribunal’s Case Assessment Direction directing a summary hearing in this case.

9I am not seized of this matter.