Carosi v. Toronto (City), 2009 HRTO 461

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Maria Carosi

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Andrew Weretelnyk, Anna Kinastowski, Diana Dimmer and Neil Zaph

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Claudio Carosi

Applicant

-and-

City of Toronto, Andrew Weretelnyk, Anna Kinastowski, Diana Dimmer and Neil Zaph

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Hinchman

Date: April 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 461

Indexed as: Carosi v. Toronto (City)

1These are two Applications T-0820-08 and T-0821-08 filed December 29, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). For both Applications, identical materials were filed in the underlying complaints and are briefly summarized as follows:

The applicants, husband and wife, allege discrimination on the grounds of age, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race in the areas of goods and services, accommodation, contract, and employment. The applicants allege that the discrimination arose when they attempted to recoup payment due for work that they completed for the City of Toronto.

2These Applications involve similar facts, the same parties, and appear to raise similar legal issues. By letter dated March 27, 2009, the parties were informed that the Tribunal would process the Applications together and were given an opportunity to file written objections to that direction.

3The applicants object. The male applicant argues that because the parties have not made this request, the Tribunal has no authority to process the Applications together and doing so gives the respondents preferential treatment for not adhering to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The male applicant claims the decision subjects him to undue hardship. The female applicant submits she would be prejudiced by not being able to independently advance her own case. The respondents have not made submissions in response.

4The Tribunal’s 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. Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m) provide the Tribunal with the authority, so as to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process, to order, on its own initiative, that applications involving similar facts and issues proceed together. Notwithstanding such a decision, each applicant retains the right to advance his or her own position including the right to make independent decisions on settlement offers and other matters pertaining to the application. I do not accept that having the Applications proceed together will cause either applicant any prejudice or undue hardship.

5In the circumstances, pursuant to Rules 1.1, 4.1 and 4.3 (m) and in order to ensure a fair, just and highly expeditious process for their resolution, Applications T-0820-08 and T-0821-08 shall proceed together.

6The respondents have alleged in the Response (Form B) to both Applications that all or part of the Applications are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the Ontario Human Rights Commission has already dismissed the complaints which underlie the present Applications and the complainants chose not to make a request for reconsideration. Alternatively, the respondents submit that the Tribunal should exercise its authority under section 45.1 of the Code to dismiss the Applications on the basis that the Commission has already dealt appropriately with the substance of the Applications.

7The Tribunal directs that the parties provide submissions with respect to this preliminary issue in accordance with the following schedule:

a. The applicants shall deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions responding to the jurisdictional issue and the s.45.1 issue within 20 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant shall include any correspondence to and from the Commission relating to the Commission dismissal decision and/or any request for reconsideration.

b. The respondents may deliver to the applicants and file with the Tribunal reply submissions, if any, within 10 days of receiving the applicants’ submissions.

8The Tribunal may decide the respondents’ requests on the basis of the written submissions. If oral submissions are required, the Tribunal will contact the parties to set a hearing date.

9I am not seized of these matters.