HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Jeannotte Applicant
-and-
1682298 Ontario Inc., Spearmint Rhino Consulting Wordwide Inc. LLC and Scott Fenton Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
William Jeannotte Applicant
-and-
1682298 Ontario Inc., Spearmint Rhino Consulting Wordwide Inc. LLC and Scott Fenton Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 11, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 288 Indexed as: Jeannotte v. 1682298 Ontario
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these two Applications should be consolidated. The applicant filed his original Application on December 31, 2009, and a second Application on February 2, 2010. The first Application alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in employment and the second Application alleged reprisal for filing the first Application, 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 (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.
4There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Moreover, the parties consent to consolidation. For these reasons, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.
5I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto this 11th day of February, 2011.
”signed by”_________
Naomi Overend Vice-chair