HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Garry Trevors
Applicant
-and-
Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Martin Woock, Jim Minnes, Jeff Rychel and John Papini
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Garry Trevors
Applicant
-and-
Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Martin Woock, Jim Minnes, Jeff Rychel and John Papini
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Trevors v. Homestead Land Holdings Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Garry Trevors, Applicant
Cecil Norman, Representative
Homestead Land Holdings Limited, Martin Woock, Jim Minnes, Jeff Rychel and John Papini, Respondents
Donald B. Bayne, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.
2These two Applications are filed by the same applicant, and involve an ongoing factual situation and the same named respondents. The respondents have indicated that they support consolidation of these two files. In a Case Assessment Direction issued on June 29, 2012, the applicant was directed to file submissions with respect to whether the Applications should be consolidated and has consented.
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. In 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.
4Having regard to the factors above and the parties consent I am satisfied that the most fair, just and expeditious manner of adjudicating these Applications is that they be consolidated pursuant to Rule 1.7(d).
5I am not seized of this case.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of July, 2012.
Signed by
David Muir
Vice-chair