Surh v. Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc., 2012 HRTO 1016

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh

Applicant

-and-

Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc. (958902 Ontario Inc.)

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Doug Surh

Applicant

-and-

Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc. (958902 Ontario Inc.)

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 18, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1016

Indexed as: Surh v. Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc.

1The applicant filed Application 2010-07548-I and Application 2011-10390-I alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, sex and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2These two Applications were filed by the applicant against the same respondent on November 30, 2010 and one year later on November 30, 2011. In the first Application, the applicant alleges that he was approached and “confined” by security guards at the respondent mall for discriminatory reasons on December 12, 2009. In the second Application, the applicant alleges a similar pattern of conduct, which he says took place on December 3, 2010.

3In both cases, the respondent denies any knowledge of the incidents, saying that it maintains records of all interactions between security staff and patrons, but that there are no records on either of the two dates concerning the applicant.

4In a previous Case Assessment Direction, issued April 18, 2012, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties if they opposed consolidating the two matters by May 2, 2012. Neither party sent in submissions in opposition to the proposed consolidation.

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 (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.

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

8I am not seized of this matter.