Date: 19990525
Docket: T-1503-98
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 1999
PRESENT: MS. R. ARONOVITCH, PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Applicant
- and -
BARRY CRAMM
Applicant
- and -
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY (TERRA TRANSPORT)
Respondent
- and -
BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES
Respondent
- and -
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Intervenor
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
ARONOVITCH P.:
[1] This is an application on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company ("CPR") for leave to intervene in the within proceedings, initiated by the applicants, for judicial review of a decision of the Human Rights Tribunal now set to be heard on June 17, 1999. CPR seeks full rights of participation in the proceedings by way of a filing of Memorandum of Fact and Law and by participation in oral arguments before the Court.
[2] The respondents consent to CPR"s application and the intervenor, Public Service Alliance of Canada, takes no position.
[3] By way of background, the Human Rights Tribunal ("Tribunal") found in October 1997 that the Canadian National Railway ("CNR") and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees ("B.M.W.E.") had adversely discriminated against Barry Cramm on the grounds of disability in the calculation of the "Cumulative Compensated Service" ("C.C.S.") as a result of which Mr. Cramm was denied certain benefits.
[4] The employer CNR appealed the decision to the Review Tribunal. The respondent Union B.M.W.E. did not. The Review Tribunal reversed the decision of the Tribunal whereupon the Commission and Mr. Cramm initiated this judicial review of that Review Tribunal"s decision.
[5] On December 22, 1998, the Public Service Alliance of Canada ("P.S.A.C." or the "Alliance") served a motion record to intervene in the proceedings on the basis inter alia that the B.M.W.E. has not filed a record in these proceedings and that the perspective of the Alliance would be distinctive and helpful to the Court. On February 1, 1999, P.S.A.C. was granted leave to intervene limited to an expression of "the Union point of view regarding legal issues only without any intervention on the back of this case." (Order of Mr. Justice Blais dated February 1, 1999.) On April 29, 1999, CPR served and filed its motion to intervene.
[6] The interpretation of the term CCS which appears in the collective agreements between the respondents and CNR and B.M.W.E. will be centrally at issue in the present judicial review proceeding and is a term which is also contained in the collective agreements of CPR. On that basis, CPR advances two direct and principal interests in this proceeding. The first of these is that a number of complaints lodged with the Human Rights Commission against CPR, in relation to this matter, have been stood down by the Commission until the disposition of the present application. CPR also claims an interest, and rights to be effected, by reason of the fact that any adverse interpretation by the Court, of the provision in its collective agreements, is likely to have significant economic impact on CPR.
[7] CPR states that it has extensive experience in interpreting and administrating the challenged provision in its collective agreements. It also argues that CPR"s position is distinct from that of the other parties and that CPR will bring an alternative and informative viewpoint which will be helpful to the Court in its deliberations.
[8] Having considered the submissions of all of the parties, I find that CPR"s interests in this proceeding are similar to that of the respondent CNR. While CPR may have an economic interest in the matter, to the extent that its interests are similar to CNR"s, these are being vigorously represented and advocated by the latter, a party to the proceedings. Moreover, while CPR contends that it has a different point of view which will aid the Court in understanding the issues, I do not find evidence or explanation of this perspective in CPR"s submissions, most especially having reference to the statement of the position to be advanced by CPR if allowed to intervene in these proceedings.
[9] Allowing a party to intervene is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the Court in accordance with the circumstances of the case. The party seeking to intervene has the burden in this respect and, in my view, has not discharged it in the circumstances of this case. I am not satisfied that there is either a point of view or information which CPR can bring to these proceedings, especially at this late date, which would be of assistance to the Court and is not already before the Court by reason of CNR"s position and representations. (Canadian Wildlife Federation Inc. V. Canada (Minister of the Environment) and Saskatchewan Water Corp. (1989), 26 F.T.R. 241 (R.D.) Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. Memorial University of Newfoundland (1997), 135 F.T.R. 211 (T.D.).
[10] Accordingly, CPR"s motion for leave to intervene is denied. No costs are requested or granted.
"R. Aronovitch"/
Prothonotary