Cann v. Rona Ontario, 2011 HRTO 303

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jonathan Cann Applicant

-and-

Rona Ontario Inc. Respondent

And Between:

Jonathan Cann Applicant

-and-

Rona Ontario Incorporated, Rona Incorporated and Noble Trade Incorporated Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 14, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 303 Indexed as: Cann v. Rona Ontario

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these two Applications should be consolidated and to determine the respondents’ request for particulars with respect to the 2009 Application.

2The applicant filed an Application on July 27, 2009 (the 2009 Application), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The 2009 Application concerns the treatment leading up to and including his termination from employment on July 19, 2009.

3The applicant filed a second Application on September 13, 2010 (the 2010 Application), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal contrary to the Code against Rona Ontario Incorporated, Rona Incorporated and Noble Trade Incorporated (collectively “the corporate respondents”). The 2010 Application concerns an alleged failure to offer him an interview or hire him in four separate job competitions.

4In a previous Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 163, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties on consolidation. Both the applicant and respondents advised the Tribunal that they supported consolidation of these matters.

5Rule 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.

6In 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.

7There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Moreover, the parties support consolidation of the Applications. For these reasons, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

8As noted above, the respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) in which they sought particulars concerning certain specified allegations in the 2009 Application. The applicant did not respond to this Request and the time for doing so has now passed.

9The Tribunal concurs that the particulars requested by the respondents in paragraph 3 of their Form 10 are appropriate, given that this matter is now proceeding to hearing. To the extent that the applicant is able to provide the particulars requested, he shall do so within four weeks of the date of this Interim Decision.

10I am not seized of this matter.