Court File and Parties

CITATION: Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6509

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 498/25

DATE: 20251121

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: LYDIA DOSU, Applicant/Responding Party

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO and YORK UNIVERSITY Respondents/Responding Parties

AND:

YORK UNIVERSITY STAFF ASSOCIATION and BLACK LEGAL ACTION CENTRE, Proposed Intervenors/Moving Parties

BEFORE: Justice S. Nakatsuru

COUNSEL: Adrienne Lei, Virginia Duarte Walsh, for the Moving Party York University Staff Association

Demar Kemar Hewitt, for the Moving Party Black Legal Action Centre

Ron Franklin, for the Applicant/Responding Party

Adam Goldenberg, Adam H. Kanji, John Gray, for the Respondent/Responding Party York University

Sabrina Fiacco, for the Respondent/Responding Party Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

HEARD in writing: In Toronto, November 21, 2025

Endorsement

[1] The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) moves for leave to intervene in the judicial review application of the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Tribunal) dated March 18, 2025, and again in a reconsideration decision dated April 17, 2025.

[2] YUSA and BLAC have brought their motions for leave to intervene under two different rules. YUSA seeks leave to intervene as an added party pursuant to Rule 13.01. BLAC seeks leave to intervene as a friend of the Court pursuant to Rule 13.02.

[3] The applicant, Ms. Dosu, consents to the interventions. The respondent York University opposes. The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario does not take a position.

[4] YUSA was Ms. Dosu’s trade union at York University. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, YUSA sought and was granted intervener status.

[5] BLAC is a legal aid clinic. It is a specialty clinic with a mandate to combat individual and anti-Black racism in the province of Ontario. BLAC is not involved in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Its background and expertise are well set out in the affidavit of Hodine Williams, a staff lawyer with the clinic.

[6] Rule 13.01 governs motions for leave to intervene as a party. This rule states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may move for leave to intervene as an added party if the person claims: (a) an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding; (b) that the person may be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding; or (c) that there exists between the person and one or more of the parties to the proceeding a question of law or fact in common with one or more of the questions in issue in the proceeding.

[7] Under Rule 13.01, the Court must assess how the proceedings may impact the proposed intervener. The central issue is whether, if the moving party is denied the opportunity to contribute to the underlying litigation, there will be a direct impact on their interests.

[8] If one of the disjunctive requirements of Rule 13.01 is met, then the Court goes on to consider whether any undue delay or prejudice would result because of the proposed intervention.

[9] In considering whether to grant leave to intervene under Rule 13.01, this Court has set out a list of factors to guide the analysis: (1) the nature of the case; (2) the issues that arise; (3) whether the issues are essentially private or whether they involve a public interest component; (4) the likelihood of the proposed intervenor making a useful contribution to the resolution of the issues; and (5) whether the proposed intervenor's participation would be unfair to the immediate parties.

[10] Rule 13.02 is concerned with how the proposed intervener who seeks leave to intervene as amicus curiae, might assist the court in the proceedings. Will the proposed intervener likely make a useful contribution to the resolution of the application without causing injustice or prejudice to the immediate parties? In order to satisfy the test to intervene as a friend of the Court, the proposed intervener must satisfy at least one of the following criteria: (i) they have a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings; (ii) they have an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties; or (iii) they are a well-recognized group with a special expertise and a broadly identifiable membership base. They should not expand the issues but offer distinctive submissions on the issues.

[11] In my opinion, when appropriate conditions are applied, both moving parties meet the test to intervene.

[12] Regarding YUSA, I find that YUSA has a significant interest in the issues raised by this case and suffers a potential risk to their interests from a decision of the Court. Their submissions in this regard are set out at paragraphs 23 to 26 of their factum. I find them persuasive.

[13] York University responds that the issue, as they see it, is a narrow one; that is whether the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss most of Ms. Dosu’s allegations as untimely was a reasonable one. York University submits that YUSA will not be able to offer anything that is not duplicative and while they may have interests in the ongoing Tribunal hearing, it has nothing at stake on this application.

[14] There is no question of the general importance of the case to YUSA give their role as the bargaining unit of the collective agreement in question and their membership’s interest in workplace procedures and discrimination.

[15] While York University may ultimately prove correct in their determination of what the judicial review application might ultimately turn on, there remains a realistic and live potential that YUSA’s significant interests might be affected at the judicial review decision. I observe that part of the remedy sought by Ms. Dosu is a ruling by the Court that her HRTO application has a reasonable prospect of success. In all the circumstances, I find that YUSA has a right to be heard.

[16] Moreover, YUSA was given intervenor status before the Tribunal though the extent of their participation remains to be determined by the adjudicator. Intervenors who were added parties in an underlying proceeding should expect to continue as an added party on appeal, unless there are "intervening events or exceptional circumstances" that justify declining their continuing intervention as a party: London District Catholic School Board v. Weilgosh, 2023 ONSC 2588 at paras. 115, 17-23. No intervening events or exceptional circumstances exist to justify not adding YUSA on this judicial review application as a party.

[17] Adding YUSA will not unduly delay the matter or prejudice any of the parties. Ms. Dosu consents. York University’s submissions do not focus on this in their objections.

[18] Regarding BLAC, I find that BLAC will make a useful contribution to the hearing of the application as a friend of the Court. BLAC is a well-recognized organization with a public mandate, special expertise that represents a broad membership. They have experience in past interventions and provide a unique perspective.

[19] On the specifics of this application, BLAC’s concern arises from a potential interpretation of the decisions that could suggest a requirement that an applicant must first raise their discrimination with their employer before the establishment of liability. It is argued that this will have a direct and significant impact on Black persons other than the applicant. Moreover, there may be systemic consequences of such an interpretation. BLAC is well placed to offer assistance in how the intersectional nature of discrimination faced by Black persons should be addressed on the judicial review application. The issue is connected to the ones raised by Ms. Dosu.

[20] I appreciate York University’s position is that this issue does not arise in this case given their view of the decisions. However, a sufficient foundation exists to support the intervention of BLAC.

[21] BLAC’s participation will not expand the judicial review application, cause delay, or complicate the hearing. The role it can play is distinctive in that it can provide a systemic lens to the issues raised on the judicial review application. Finally, I do not accept that partiality is a ground to reject BLAC’s intervention.

[22] For these reasons, the motions for leave to intervene is granted.

[23] The parties have all agreed to cooperate to make sure that there is no duplication or overlap in their submissions. As well, given the likely positions that will be taken by the intervenors, their factums should be delivered at the same time as Ms. Dosu’s.

[24] An Order will go granting YUSA and BLAC leave to intervene on the following terms:

a) That the intervenors shall take the record as it is and shall not file further evidence;

b) That the intervenors will be permitted to file a factum no longer than 10 pages in length for the hearing of the application for judicial review;

c) That York University will be permitted to file a factum of 40 pages;

d) That the intervenors will be allocated up to five (5) minutes for oral argument at the hearing of the application for judicial review; and

e) That costs of this motion and the application for judicial review shall not be awarded to or against moving parties.

Justice S. Nakatsuru

Released: November 21, 2025.