Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, 2011 HRTO 1281

Lianne Aubin

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

Carrie-Anne Collin

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

Lyndsay Rogers

Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and Morag Anderson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 05, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1281

Indexed as: Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre

1The applicants in these matters have filed Applications under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the“Code”). All Applications allege discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment and all three applicants were employed by the respondent organization. This Interim Decision will determine whether the Applications will be consolidated or heard together and if two of the Applications will be amended to add a new reprisal allegation.

REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE

2In their Responses, the respondents request that the Applications be consolidated or heard together and/or consecutively because they arise out of the same facts and make similar allegations against the same respondents. In correspondence dated June 13, 2011, the applicants have also requested that the Applications be heard together.

3In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal 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

4It appears that all of the factors noted in Persuad, supra, present in favour of hearing the Applications together. Without predetermining the issue, it appears that there are common and overlapping facts and issues in the Applications. The parties, witnesses and some of the documentary evidence will likely be the same in the hearing of the Applications. It also appears that that hearing the Applications together would not prolong or delay the process. As such, it would to be in the public interest to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by hearing the Applications together. Furthermore, no party has asserted any prejudice. Having regard to all of these factors, as well as the parties’ consents, and considering the Tribunal’s mandate to resolve matters in a fair, just, and expeditious manner, I order that Applications 2010-06538-I, 2010-06683-I and 2010-06825-I be heard together.

REQUEST TO AMEND

5On January 12, 2011, two applicants (2010-06683-I and 2010-06825-I) filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (“Requests”) seeking that their Applications be amended to include a new allegation of reprisal arising out of the fact that their employment with the respondent organization was terminated following the filing of the Application. The Requests allege that the respondent organization closed its operations and dismissed its employees because of the applicants’ human rights cases.

6The respondents did not file submissions in response to the Requests to amend the Applications.

7In determining requests to amend Applications under section 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336; Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926; and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.

8In view of the stage at which the Requests to amend are made, the nature of the amendment, and the absence of any apparent prejudice, I see no reason to deny the applicants the requested amendments to the Applications. Given that there has been no objection to the Requests to amend and given that the Requests were made soon after the alleged events and within the one year timeline, I am satisfied that the applicants should be permitted to amend Applications 2010-06683-I and 2010-06825-I to include the new allegations of reprisal.

ORDER

9The Tribunal orders as follows:

i) Applications 2010-06538-I, 2010-06683-I and 2010-06825-I will be heard together; and

ii) The applicants’ Requests to amend the Applications 2010-06683-I and 2010-06825-I are granted. Should the respondents wish to file amended Responses they are required to file their amended Responses with the Tribunal, delivered to other parties, within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicants to Applications 2010-06683-I and 2010-06825-I may each file an amended Reply with the Tribunal, delivered to the other parties, within 14 days of receipt of the amended Responses;

10I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of July, 2011

”Signed by”

Ena Chadha

Vice-chair