Suriya Dostzadah v. Voysus Group Inc. and Mahdi Raza, 2011 HRTO 1446

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Suriya Dostzadah Applicant

-and-

Voysus Group Inc. and Mahdi Raza Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: August 2, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1446 Indexed as: Dostzadah v. Voysus Group

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on April 30, 2010 alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to employment on the basis of sex (and solicitation).

2The respondents filed a Response on July 20, 2010, denying the allegations.

3On June 30, 2011, following a mediation between the parties, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to amend the Application. The applicant requests that the Application be amended with respect to the remedial claim. The applicant seeks to increase the quantum of damages sought.

4The respondents did not file a response to the applicant’s Request.

DECISION

5The Request indicates that the applicant was self-represented when she filed her Application on April 6, 2010 and was unaware of her financial entitlements. The Application notes that, as her total monetary remedial claim, the applicant sought an amount of $30,000 to $45,000 for loss of wages, pain and suffering and injury to dignity. The applicant subsequently obtained representation. In the Request, the applicant now seeks to amend the remedial claim to $150,000.

6Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”

7Given the nature of the proposed amendments, I am satisfied that the Application may be amended with respect to the remedial claim. The proposed remedial amendment is simply a request to augment the damages claim to reflect the alleged loss of income and compensation for general damages. The requested amendment does not change the nature of the allegations of discrimination, nor impact the processing of the Application, which is currently scheduled for hearing in January 2012.

8On balance, having regard to the nature of the amendment and the absence of any clear prejudice, the amendment to the requested remedy is granted. This amendment is made without any determination by the Tribunal as to the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies sought, and without prejudice to any position respondent may wish to take regarding these issues.

CONSOLIDATION

9In her narrative, the applicant refers to a former co-worker who has also filed an Application against the same respondents making similar allegations. The applicant refers to the former co-worker as a witness in her case. It appears that the former co-worker is the applicant in Application 2010-05327-I, which is scheduled for hearing in February 2012. The respondents’ Response also references these two applicants.

10Rule 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. In 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

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

11Given the common parties, potential overlapping facts, issues, and interests present in the two Applications, the Tribunal directs the parties to provide their position on consolidation of this Application with the Application 2010-05327-I. Specifically, if a party does not consent to consolidation, then it should provide written submissions in support of its position to the Tribunal and the other parties.

DIRECTIONS

12In conclusion, I order the following:

1. The Application be amended with respect to the remedial claim as per the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings;

2. The respondents may file with the Tribunal, and copied to the applicant, an amended Response within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision with respect to the issue of remedies;

3. Also within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision the respondents must write to the Tribunal, copied to the applicant, setting out their position with respect to consolidation; and

4. The applicant may file with the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, a Reply to the respondents’ amended Response within 7 days of receipt of the amended Response. Also within 7 days of the date of receipt of the amended Response, the applicant must write to the Tribunal, copied to the respondents, setting out her position with respect to consolidation.

13I am not seized.