Kadic v. AXYZ Automation, 2010 HRTO 1030

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mugdim Kadic

Applicant

-and-

AXYZ Automation Inc.

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Jasmin Milak

Applicant

-and-

AXYZ Automation Inc., AXYZ UK Inc. and AXYZ International Inc.

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Marvin Macdonald

Applicant

-and-

AXYZ Automation Inc., AXYZ UK Inc. and AXYZ International Inc.

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Amir Kurtovic

Applicant

-and-

AXYZ Automation Inc., AXYZ UK Inc. and AXYZ International Inc.

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Sean Parmenter

Applicant

-and-

AXYZ Automation Inc., AXYZ UK Inc. and AXYZ International Inc.

Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Krzysztof Konefal

Applicant

-and-

AXYZ Automation Inc., AXYZ UK Inc. and AXYZ International Inc.

Respondents

Interim decision

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: May 11, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1030

Indexed as: Kadic v. AXYZ Automation

1These six Applications were filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“the Code”) alleging discrimination in respect of employment on the basis of disability contrary to the Code.

2The applicants, all of whom are represented by the same legal counsel, filed Requests for Order during Proceedings (Form 10) (“the Requests”) in which they request that the six Applications be consolidated for the purposes of mediation and adjudication.

3The respondents oppose the applicants’ request for consolidation.

4Although it is apparent upon reviewing the pleadings in these matters that there is a significant overlap in the allegations in the Applications, there also appear to be allegations which are specific to the individual Applications, regarding, for example, the nature of the applicants’ disabilities, their attempts to mitigate their losses following the termination of their employment, and certain other alleged interactions between some of the applicants and the respondent employer.

5In light of the substantial overlap of the facts and issues raised in the Applications, and in order to minimize the possibility of inconsistent factual or legal findings in respect of the Applications, the Applications will be processed together by the Tribunal and heard by one adjudicator. The decision about whether or not the Applications ought to be consolidated, heard together, or heard serially will be determined by the Vice-chair assigned to hear the Applications, along with any other issues regarding the hearing process.

6With respect to mediation in the Applications, mediation is a voluntary and confidential process at the Tribunal. In my view, in light of the nature of the Tribunal’s mediation process, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to require the respondent to mediate with all of the applicants at the same time against its will. In order ensure the most effective use of the Tribunal’s resources, however, all of the Applications will be scheduled for mediation on the same date and assigned to one mediator. The mediator may determine the process to be employed during mediation, in consultation with the parties, and bearing in mind the voluntary nature of the process.

7I am not seized.