name: Hoyt v. Canadian National Railway
unofficial_text: 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
  