Yale v. Huntsville (Town), 2011 HRTO 2242

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marcia Yale

Applicant

-and-

Town of Huntsville and the District Municipality of Muskoka

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Mike Yale

Applicant

-and-

Town of Huntsville and the District Municipality of Muskoka

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: December 14, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2242

Indexed As: Yale v. Huntsville (Town)

1These Applications were filed on October 4, 2010, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

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.), 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.

4These are identical Applications, involving the same allegations and same respondent. Each of the Application forms are signed by both applicants. The parties have all confirmed their expectation that these cases will be heard together. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

5The files will be returned to the Tribunal Registrar for re-scheduling of the hearing.

Other Matters

6The Tribunal acknowledges and confirms the parties’ prior agreement that the personal respondent be removed from these Applications. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

7I am not seized of these cases.