minicounsel

Vogel v. 2178789 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1143 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

May 20, 2010

Vogel v. 2178789 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1143

Case Summary

The respondent employer requested to consolidate three human rights applications filed by three family members (a mother, daughter, and step-father) who were all employed by the respondent and terminated following an incident involving the daughter. The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate, finding that the facts and issues were common and interrelated, and that consolidation would avoid inconvenience, repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Vogel

Applicant

-and-

2178789 Ontario Inc. o/a Victoria Harbour Foodland

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Jessica Jambrich

Applicant

-and-

2178789 Ontario Inc. o/a Victoria Harbour Foodland

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Michael Hurst

Applicant

-and-

2178789 Ontario Inc. o/a Victoria Harbour Foodland

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1143

Indexed as: Vogel v. 2178789 Ontario

[1] The applicant, Angela Vogel, filed Applications 2009-03731-I and 2009-03734-I on behalf of herself and her daughter, Jessica Jambrich, on October 8, 2009, under Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment. Subsequently, Michael Hurst, Ms Jambrich’s step-father, filed Application 2010-04633-I on January 21, 2010 alleging discrimination in employment against the same respondent. This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request to consolidate the three Applications.

[2] The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) on April 23, 2010, following receipt of the Hurst Application. The RFOP was served on all three applicants. None of the applicants submitted a Response to the RFOP. Mr. Hurst did submit a Reply, dated May 7, 2010, but it did not deal with the RFOP.

[3] The 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.

[4] In this case, it is clear that the facts and issues on all three Applications are common and interrelated. All three applicants were employed by the respondent, a grocery store in Simcoe County. The allegations surround an incident involving Ms Jambrich. Mr. Hurst confronted the owner of the respondent store that day following that incident. Several days later, the respondent terminated the employment of all three applicants.

[5] I am satisfied that there is strong public interest in avoiding the inconvenience to the parties and their witnesses, the repetition of evidence and the risk of inconsistent results that would be involved in hearing these matters separately. The respondent’s Request to consolidate these three matters is therefore granted.

[6] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 20^th^ day of May, 2010.

“Signed by”

Naomi Overend

Vice-chair