Farooqi v. Intercon Security Ltd., 2011 HRTO 1049

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sara Farooqi Applicant

-and-

Intercon Security Ltd. Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Saba Farooqi Applicant

-and-

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Saba Farooqi Applicant

-and-

Intercon Security Limited Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

Sara Farooqi Applicant

-and-

The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company Respondent

interim decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: June 1, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1049 Indexed as: Farooqi v. Intercon Security Ltd.

1The applicants filed Applications under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code") alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and sex in the area of goods, services and facilities. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these four Applications should be consolidated and to address the applicants' request for an adjournment of the June 1, 2011 hearing date.

CONSOLIDATION

2Rule 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.

3In 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 (C.H.R.T.), 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.

4The applicants are mother and daughter. The four applications involve the same allegations and relate to the same alleged incident involving the same respondents. In my view there is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

ADJOURNMENT REQUEST

5A one day hearing in respect of the consolidated Applications was scheduled for June 1, 2011.

6In a letter to the Tribunal dated May 26, 2011 the applicants requested an adjournment of the June 1, 2010 hearing "due to extraordinary circumstances as we are not well to attend the hearing". In support of this basis for their request, the applicants provided a note from their family doctor, which states: "I am recommending counselling for both of them. If they are forced to engage in any proceedings at this time their emotional and mental health may be seriously compromised". Their family doctor also recommended that the applicants "not engage in any proceedings of this incident for at least two to three months".

7The respondents have reluctantly agreed to the adjournment. They query how postponing this matter will make the hearing any less stressful for the Applicants. They also point out that the events in question in this matter took place nearly three years ago. They express concern that the accuracy of the witnesses' recollections will be reduced with the passage of time.

8On the basis of the medical information received by the Tribunal, I am prepared to grant the applicants' request for an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for June 1, 2011. In allowing the applicants' request for an adjournment, I want to be clear that this proceeding cannot be delayed indefinitely. I share the respondents concern that the events at issue in this matter date back almost 3 years now and the evidence grows staler with each passing day. There may come a point where the delay in proceeding with this matter has caused sufficient prejudice to the respondents so as to affect the fairness of the hearing.

9I propose that the hearing be re-scheduled for one day in September, 2011. Within 10 calendar days of the date of this decision, the parties shall advise the Tribunal of all of their availability, including the availability of their witness, in September, 2011.

10I am not seized.