HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
N.P. by his next friend S.P.
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board and Patricia Sullivan
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
N.P. by his next friend S.P.
Applicant
-and-
Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed as: N.P. v. Ottawa-Carleton District School Board
1The applicant filed two Applications on behalf of her son on January 12, 2010 and February 22, 2011 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and ethnic origin, and disability and reprisal respectively in the provision of services, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).
2The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these two Applications should be consolidated and whether Application 2011-8188-I should be amended to reflect the new relief sought by the applicant and to remove the individual respondent.
3Rule 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.
4In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal held that there is an interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings where there are common issues of fact and/or law, and where the considerations in favour of consolidation outweigh the potential prejudice to the respondent(s).
5It would appear from the particulars in these Applications that the applicant is alleging ongoing issues with the respondent Board and that there are common issues of fact and law. Moreover, the respondents consent to consolidation. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.
6The respondents likewise consent to the amendment to the relief requested in Application 2011-8188-I. The applicant’s request to amend her Application to include the amended relief set out in section 4 of her Request for Order During Proceeding filed on May 9, 2011 is accordingly granted.
7With respect to the respondents’ Request for Order During Proceedings filed June 24, 2011 to remove the named individual respondent, Mari Murray, I adopt the reasoning of Vice-chair Chadha in her Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1540, where she decided a request to remove the individual respondents from Application 2010-4545-I. Specifically, with respect to the request to remove one of the individually named respondents in that Application, Vice-chair Chadha noted at para. 6: “The allegations with respect to Virely relate directly to her conduct in her employment role and do not appear to impugn her for any personal behaviour.” These comments are equally applicable to Ms. Murray. See also Persaud v. Toronto District School Board 2008 HRTO 31, at paras. 4-5, relied on in 2010 HRTO 1540.
8Moreover, the applicant is not seeking individual remedies with respect to Ms. Murray and, in any event, the Board has acknowledged it will be responsible for implementing any remedy that might be ordered. In the absence of a compelling reason to continue this Application against the individual respondent, Mari Murrary, I order her removed as a party to this proceeding and the style of cause amended accordingly.
ORDER
9In summary, I have made the following orders:
a. Applications 2010-4545-I and 2011-8188-I are consolidated;
b. Section 9 of Application 2011-8188-I is amended to reflect the relief requested in section 4 of the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings; and
c. Mari Murray is removed as a respondent to Application 2011-8188-I.
10I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 2nd day of December, 2011.
“Signed by”
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair