Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway
Court headnote
Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway Collection Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Date 2005-12-06 Neutral citation 2005 CHRT 46 File number(s) T1036/1705 Decision-maker(s) Jensen, Karen A. Decision type Decision Decision Content CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE CATHERINE HOYT Complainant - and - CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Commission - and - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY Respondent RULING MEMBER: Karen A. Jensen 2005 CHRT 46 2005/12/06 [1] The United Transportation Union has asked that it be granted interested party status in a complaint involving Catherine Hoyt and Canadian National Railway. The Complainant, Ms. Catherine Hoyt, has consented to the motion and the Respondent, Canadian National Railway, has indicated that it neither objects nor consents to the request. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not participate in the motion. [2] Section 50 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the Tribunal wide discretion with respect to the granting of interested party status (Eyerley v. Seaspan International Ltd. [2000] C.H.R.D. No. 16 at para. 3 (Q.L.)). In deciding whether or not to grant interested party status in a particular case, the onus is on the Applicants to show how their expertise would be of assistance in the determination of the issues before the Tribunal (Nkwazi v. Canada (Correctional Service) [2000] C.H.R.D. No. 15 at para. 23 (Q.L.); Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International …
Read full judgment
Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway Collection Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Date 2005-12-06 Neutral citation 2005 CHRT 46 File number(s) T1036/1705 Decision-maker(s) Jensen, Karen A. Decision type Decision Decision Content CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE CATHERINE HOYT Complainant - and - CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Commission - and - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY Respondent RULING MEMBER: Karen A. Jensen 2005 CHRT 46 2005/12/06 [1] The United Transportation Union has asked that it be granted interested party status in a complaint involving Catherine Hoyt and Canadian National Railway. The Complainant, Ms. Catherine Hoyt, has consented to the motion and the Respondent, Canadian National Railway, has indicated that it neither objects nor consents to the request. The Canadian Human Rights Commission did not participate in the motion. [2] Section 50 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the Tribunal wide discretion with respect to the granting of interested party status (Eyerley v. Seaspan International Ltd. [2000] C.H.R.D. No. 16 at para. 3 (Q.L.)). In deciding whether or not to grant interested party status in a particular case, the onus is on the Applicants to show how their expertise would be of assistance in the determination of the issues before the Tribunal (Nkwazi v. Canada (Correctional Service) [2000] C.H.R.D. No. 15 at para. 23 (Q.L.); Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. 220 (F.C.A.), at para. 12). [3] In its Statement of Particulars, CN has raised the issue of the Union's involvement in the efforts to accommodate Ms. Hoyt. In particular, CN alleges that the Union did not act cooperatively or reasonably with respect to Ms. Hoyt's accommodation. [4] The Union argues that it is in a better position than Ms. Hoyt to respond to these allegations since Ms. Hoyt did not hold a position in the Union and therefore, does not have direct knowledge of what went on between the Union and CN. The Union asserts that without its participation, the Tribunal will have an incomplete picture of the case. I accept that the Union's participation is necessary to gain a full understanding of the efforts that were made to accommodate Ms. Hoyt. [5] Would it be sufficient if the Union's representatives participated as witnesses in the hearing? I think not. Allegations have been made in this case which, if substantiated, may have an impact on the Union's interests. Therefore, in my view, the Union should be given an opportunity to address the question of its involvement in the accommodation efforts and any other issues where its interests may be affected. [6] For this reason, the Union will be granted interested party status, including the right to introduce evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses and present argument on issues where its interests may be affected and on its involvement in the accommodation efforts. I would encourage the Union to consult on an on-going basis with counsel for Ms. Hoyt, in order to ensure that there is no duplication in their efforts. [7] The Union will provide a Statement of Particulars and full disclosure of the evidence that it seeks to adduce in accordance with Rule 6 of the Tribunal Rules. The disclosure must include the names of proposed witnesses and a short summary of the anticipated testimony of each witness. The Statement of Particulars will be filed and disclosure completed by January 27, 2006. The Respondent shall have until February 27, 2006 to file an amended Statement of Particulars and to disclose any responding evidence. [8] The Tribunal reserves the right to address any case management issues arising from this ruling. Signed by Karen A. Jensen OTTAWA, Ontario December 6, 2005 PARTIES OF RECORD TRIBUNAL FILE: T1036/1705 STYLE OF CAUSE: Catherine Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway December 6, 2005 RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: APPEARANCES: Leanne M. Chahley For the Complainant Ikram Warsame For the Canadian Human Rights Commission Joseph H. Hunder For the Respondent Michael Church For United Transportation Union - Proposed Interested Party
Source: decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca