Court File and Parties

CITATION: Dosu v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6496

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-00000498-00JR
DATE: 20251120

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: lydia dosu, Applicant

AND:

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and York University, Respondents

AND:

York University Staff Association and Black Legal Action Centre, Proposed Interveners

BEFORE: SHORE J.

COUNSEL: Ron Franklin, for the Applicant Adam Goldenberg, Adam H. Kanji and John Gray, for the Respondent York University Sabrina Fiacco, for the Respondent Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario Adrienne Lei and Virginia Duarte Walsh, for the proposed Intervener, York University Staff Association Demar Kemar Hewitt, for the proposed Intervener, Black Legal Action Centre

HEARD IN WRITING

Endorsement

[1] York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) (collectively referred to as the "Proposed Intervenors") seek leave to intervene in this application for judicial review, pursuant to rr. 13.01 and 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 (the Rules).

[2] The Applicant, Lydia Dosu, consents to the request. The Respondent, York University, opposes the request.

[3] For the reasons below, leave to intervene is not granted.

Background:

[4] The Applicant was an employee of York University. She alleges that between April 2015 until 2019, York University discriminated against her and harassed her, on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin, and that she was subjected to reprisal after she raised her concerns, all contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O 1990, c.H.19 (the Code).

[5] Her application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) was filed on April 13, 2019.

[6] YUSA is a trade union and the certified bargaining agent for a number of York employees, including the Applicant. On January 31, 2023, YUSA filed a grievance under its collective agreement with York regarding the termination of the Applicant's employment for cause. The grievance alleges that the Applicant was discriminated against under the Code.

[7] On February 10, 223, YUSA filed a second grievance, related to the allegation that the Applicant was subjected to discrimination in the course of York's investigation of her concerns of discrimination and harassment.

[8] YUSA sought and was granted intervenor status in the proceeding before the HRTO, however, the HRTO has not yet established the terms of YUSA's intervention.

[9] York University requested that the HRTO application be dismissed because it was out of time, and that a summary hearing be scheduled to dismiss the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

[10] Section 34(1) of the Code requires applications to the HRTO to be made within one year after (a) the incident of alleged discrimination, or (b) the last incident of alleged discrimination in a series of such incidents. Under section 34(2), the HRTO may relieve against this one-year time limit if it "is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay".

[11] The preliminary and summary hearing took place on January 8, 2025.

[12] In its interim decision, dated March 18, 2025, the HRTO dismissed nearly all of the Applicant's claims, for being barred by the one-year limitation period in the Code. The HRTO ordered the remaining issues to proceed to a hearing on the merits. The remaining issues are York's vicarious liability for alleged acts of discrimination by the independent third-party investigator engaged by York to investigate the Applicant's concerns under the Code; and York's duty to investigate the Applicant's concerns under the Code. That hearing has not yet taken place.

[13] On April 17, 2025, the Applicant filed a request for reconsideration. On May 16, 2025, the HRTO denied the request.

[14] The Applicant is seeking judicial review of the decisions of the HRTO. YUSA and BLAC have requested intervenor status in the application for judicial review before this Court. BLAC is a legal aid clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario. BLAC is not involved in the proceedings before the HRTO.

[15] The application is scheduled to be heard by a panel on February 2, 2025.

Analysis and Disposition:

YUSA:

[16] YUSA seeks leave to intervene as an added party under r. 13.01 of the Rules.

[17] Rule 13.01 provides that:

13.01 (1) 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.

(2) On the motion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding and the court may add the person as a party to the proceeding and may make such order as is just."

[18] It is only once a party has satisfied the first part of the test, that the Court turns its mind to the second part of the test, set out in 13.01(2). I find YUSA does not meet the first part of the test.

[19] I do not agree with YUSA's position that it has an interest in the subject matter or there is a risk it will be adversely affected by a judgment in these proceedings. In its motion material, YUSA sets out various reasons why it has an interest in the proceedings: for example, see para. 22 of their factum. However, their expressed interest relates to the matters before the HRTO, not the single issue before this Court.

[20] Whether as a friend of the Court or as an added party, an intervenor cannot introduce new issues.

[21] The only issue before this Court is whether it was reasonable for the HRTO to dismiss most of the claims for being out of time. The merits of the Applicant's case, the issue of whether the discrimination took place, and the reasons YUSA was given leave before the HRTO, is not directly before this Court. The dispute before this Court is how the limitation period under the Code should be applied to these circumstances.

[22] Further, YUSA submits that its members will be adversely affected by the decision of the HRTO if their decision is upheld by this Court. Any effect on the members would be no different than the effects on HRTO applicants generally, not specific to YUSA's members.

[23] I find that YUSA does not meet the first part of the test to be added as a party.

[24] For this reason, I need not turn my attention to the second part of the test.

BLAC

[25] BLAC seeks leave to intervene as a friend of the Court, under r. 13.02. BLAC submits that it has expertise on issues of race and anti-Black racism and that it has a special interest in ensuring the law adequately and meaningfully protects the fundamental rights of Black Ontarians, and properly considers the impact of anti-Black racism. BLAC has impressively assisted over 6500 clients to enforce their rights.

[26] Rule 13.02 provides:

Any person may, with leave of a judge or at the invitation of the presiding judge or associate judge, and without becoming a party to the proceeding, intervene as a friend of the court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court by way of argument.

[27] In considering whether to grant leave to intervene, the test is well-established. The relevant factors the Court is to consider are (i) the nature of the case; (ii) the issues that arise in the case; and (iii) the likelihood that the proposed intervenor will be able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties. See Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 1990 6886 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (2d) 164, at p. 167; and Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 270 at para. 6.

[28] The nature of this case is such that it is limited to the issue of the limitation period under the Code, or more specifically, the determination of the limitation period based on the facts of this case. BLAC proposes that its submission will be limited to their position that there is no requirement that an Applicant address acts of discrimination with their employer prior to filing an application with HRTO. But this matter can and should be addressed by the Applicant. This is the very issue to be addressed by the Applicant and not one where BLAC has distinguished expertise.

[29] I share the Respondent's concerns that granting BLAC leave to intervene will increase confusion by introducing arguments on irrelevant peripheral issues to the matters before this Court. I am not satisfied that BLAC is able to provide the Court with a perspective on the limitation period that is distinct from those of the party. I am not satisfied that the BLAC's intervention in this case would assist the court.

[30] I dismiss the motions for leave to intervene.

Shore J.

Date: November 20, 2025