Ilha v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2010 HRTO 32

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ana Ilha

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Amir Attaran

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: January 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 32

Indexed as: Ilha v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the applicants’ Request for an order to consolidate two Applications.

2The applicants filed nearly identical Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 17, 2009, which allege that the respondent discriminated against them with respect to services because of disability and sex. The e-mail to which the Applications were attached requested that the Tribunal consolidate the Applications because the applicants are spouses and based their complaints on the same set of facts, but were unable to put both their names on one Application form.

3The respondent filed Responses on October 7, 2009, which deny the allegation discrimination, and consent to the applicants’ request to consolidate the two Applications.

4Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear Applications together.

5In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal adopted the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, 2002 CanLII 45928 (CHRT), which set out the factors that should be considered in deciding whether to consolidate or hear proceedings together:

(a) The public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, including considerations of expense, delay, the convenience of the witnesses, reducing the need for the repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results;

(b) The potential prejudice to the respondents that could result from a single hearing, including the lengthening of the hearing for each respondent as issues unique to the other respondent are dealt with, and the potential for confusion that may result from the introduction of evidence that may not relate to the allegations specifically involving one respondent or the other; and

(c) Whether there are common issues of fact or law.

6In my view, the Applications should be consolidated and heard together. There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Furthermore, there is no evidence that consolidating and hearing the Applications together will result in prejudice to any person.

7The applicants’ request to consolidate the two Applications is therefore granted.

8I am not seized of this matter.