Miller v. Ontario Energy Board, 2009 HRTO 2218

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Veredian Miller

Applicants

-and-

Ontario Energy Board, Aleck Dadson, Mary Giles and Douglas Farrer

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Barr

Applicants

-and-

Ontario Energy Board, Aleck Dadson, Mary Giles and Douglas Farrer

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Tracey Netto

Applicants

-and-

Ontario Energy Board, Aleck Dadson, Mary Giles and Douglas Farrer

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Carol Steski

Applicants

-and-

Ontario Energy Board, Aleck Dadson, Mary Giles and Douglas Farrer

Respondents

INterim DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 18, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2218

Indexed as: Miller v. Ontario Energy Board

INTRODUCTION

1This Interim Decision addresses an objection by the respondents to processing the Applications together.

2The Tribunal received four transitional Applications against the respondents. The applicants are employees of the corporate respondent who allege that they have been subject to harassment and discriminatory treatment by the corporate respondent because of disability. They each filed complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2008. Part of each of the complaints related to the requirement to provide allegedly excessive medical documentation.

3The Tribunal wrote to the parties indicating that the Applications would be processed together on the basis that they appeared to raise similar issues. The respondents objected to processing the Applications together on the basis that the circumstances surrounding each applicant’s employment is different.

4The Tribunal’s Rules for Transitional Applications under Section 53(3) and 53(5) of the Human Rights Code (the “Rules”) are to be interpreted and applied in a way that ensures a fair, just and highly expeditious process for the determination of these Applications.

5These Applications involve allegations of a pattern of discrimination on the basis of disability. Some of the letters sent to the applicants are allegedly identical and may engage an attendance management practice or policy. Accordingly, I find, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m), that in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, these Applications should proceed together at this stage. The respondents have raised various procedural difficulties that may or may not arise. If those difficulties do arise, the Tribunal may revisit its Interim Decision.

5The applicants have named several personal respondents. The Tribunal seeks submissions from the applicants on whether the personal respondents should be removed having regard to the criteria set out in Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 31, at paras 4-5. Those submissions must be delivered to the respondents and the Tribunal within 21 days of receipt of this Interim Decision. The respondents may file a response, if desired one within14 days of receipt of the applicants’ submission, if any.

6The parties have indicated an interest in mediation. The Registrar-Transition will contact the parties to schedule a date for mediation.

7For case management purposes, the applicants are directed to confer and advise the Tribunal and the respondents within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision whether they intend to select a spokesperson who will act as a single point of contact, for the purpose of receiving documents, making submissions, organizing disclosure and other case management issues. Having a single point of contact would simplify the processing of these Applications together.