Bihari v. Holiday Retirement, 2011 HRTO 229

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Fernando Bihari

Applicant

-and-

Holiday Retirement Corp., Decision Toolbox Inc., Jennifer Roberts and Daryl Lashambe

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Andrea Bihari

Applicant

-and-

Holiday Retirement Corp., Decision Toolbox Inc., Jennifer Roberts and Daryl Lashambe

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta

Date: February 1, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 229

Indexed as: Bihari v. Holiday Retirement

1These are two Applications filed on September 10, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondents' Request for an order to consolidate the two Applications.

2The applicants filed two nearly identical Applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin. The respondents filed Responses on December 15, 2010, which deny the allegation of discrimination, and a Request for Order During Proceedings in which they seek dismissal of the Application against Decision Toolbox Inc. for lack of jurisdiction and request consolidation of the two Applications.

3The applicants have filed a Reply in which they oppose dismissal generally without addressing the specific concerns raised by the respondent Decision Toolbox Inc., and which does not address the issue of consolidation.

4Rule 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.

5In 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 (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.

6In my view, the Applications should be consolidated and heard together. There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Furthermore, there is no evidence that consolidating and hearing the Applications together will result in prejudice to any person.

7The respondents' request to consolidate the two Applications is therefore granted.

8The applicants are directed to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal written submissions on the respondent Decision Toolbox Inc.'s request that the Application be dismissed as against it for lack of jurisdiction with 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized of this matter.