minicounsel

Strong v. Regional Nursing Services, 2009 HRTO 2176 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

December 15, 2009

Strong v. Regional Nursing Services, 2009 HRTO 2176

Case Summary

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, the first alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status and the second alleging reprisal. The respondents requested that the two applications be consolidated and heard together on the dates already scheduled for the first application. The applicant agreed to consolidation but requested an adjournment to allow more time for disclosure and production. The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the facts were interrelated, the second matter was not factually complicated, and the applicant would not be unfairly disadvantaged by the abridged timelines.

B E T W E E N:

Margaret Strong Applicant

-and-

Regional Nursing Services Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Margaret Strong Applicant

-and-

Regional Nursing Services, Sandra Johnson and Angela Westheuser Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: December 15, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2176 Indexed as: Strong v. Regional Nursing Services

1The applicant filed Application 2008-00711-I (the “first Application”) under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status in employment. Subsequently, she filed Application 2009-03090-I (the “second Application”) alleging reprisal for having filed the first Application. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ request to consolidate the two matters so that they are heard together.

2Hearing dates in the first Application are set for January 18-20 and February 2-5, 2010. No hearing dates have been set in the second Application, as the parties just completed filing their pleadings in late November 2009. On November 27, 2009, the applicant was asked to provide her position on the respondents’ request to have the second Application heard in conjunction with the first Application at the hearing commencing January 18, 2010.

3The applicant does not oppose the consolidation of the hearings, but does not agree to the abridging of the timelines for disclosure and production under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal’s Rule of Procedure that would be necessitated by having the second Application proceed on January 18, 2010. She proposes, instead, that the consolidated hearing proceed in February 2010.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

4The authority to consolidate or hear applications together is found in Rule 1.7 (d) of the Rules of Procedure. The basis for such consolidation is to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the matters before the Tribunal.

5In this case, it is clear that the facts and issues on both Applications are common and interrelated. As a result of the termination set out in the first Application, the applicant agreed to a package that included continuing to being paid her bi-weekly salary up to and including May 22, 2009. Subsequent to the receipt of the first Application, the corporate respondent stopped these payments on February 20, 2009. This is the basis for the reprisal allegation in the second Application.

6I am satisfied that there is strong public interest in avoiding the inconvenience to the witnesses, the repetition of evidence and the risk of inconsistent results that would be involved in hearing these matters separately. The only question then is whether the January hearing dates should be adjourned in order that the applicant can adequately prepare for the hearing.

7Counsel for the applicant takes the position that abridging the timelines for disclosure and production “would unreasonably, unfairly and unjustly put our client at a disadvantage in preparing for such a hearing.” Other than that bald statement, counsel does not elaborate on what the nature of that disadvantage might be. It is not apparent on the face of the pleadings that this second matter is factually complicated. In addition, it would appear that many if not all of the documents related to the second Application have already been disclosed in conjunction with the first Application. Finally, the hearing dates are still more than a month away.

8It is appropriate, therefore, to proceed with the consolidated hearing without adjourning the first set of hearing dates. Accordingly, I make the following order:

a. Application 2008-00711-I and Application 2009-03090-I shall be heard together commencing January 18, 2010.

b. The parties shall exchange and file with the Tribunal further witness statements and production of documents on which they intend to rely by January 6, 2010.

9I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 15th day of December, 2009.

“Signed by”

Naomi Overend Vice-chair