Brodeur v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care), 2011 HRTO 747

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Brodeur Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Health and Long Term Care Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Erica McCowan Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Health and Long Term Care Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: April 18, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 747 Indexed as: Brodeur v. Ontario (Health and Long Term Care)

Reasons for Decision

1In Application 2010-07427-I the applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sex contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). Application 2010-07428-I raises the same issues. The respondent in both Applications is the same.

2In a previous Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 576, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties on consolidation by March 31, 2011. The respondent advised the Tribunal that it supported consolidation of these matters. Neither of applicants made submissions on this issue and the time for doing so has now passed.

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 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.

5There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Moreover, the respondent supports consolidation of the Applications. For these reasons, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

6I am not seized of this matter.