HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Marina Biazrov
Applicant
-and-
Paris Jewellers Ltd. and James Crusoe
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Ragani Shiwrat
Applicant
-and-
Paris Jewellers Ltd. and James Crusoe
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Biazrov v. Paris Jewellers Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ragani Shiwrat, Applicant
Self-represented
Paris Jewellers Ltd., Respondent
Rich Appiah, Counsel
Introduction
1These Applications, filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), allege sexual harassment and discrimination because of sex, ethnic origin and/or race in employment. Pursuant to an Interim Order, 2012 HRTO 1083, Ms. Biazrov was permitted to add reprisal to her allegations related to the termination of her employment in the year following the alleged sexual harassment. The corporate respondent terminated the employment of Ms. Biazrov and all the staff with whom she worked, stating that missing inventory was the reason.
2On July 19, 2012, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1415, directing the parties in these two consolidated Applications to file any submissions opposing their consolidation with a third Application, 2011-09912-I, filed by Nader Fawzy. Mr. Fawzy's Application alleges reprisal on the basis that his employment was terminated in 2011 shortly after he reported Ms. Biazrov's and Ms. Shiwrat's sexual harassment complaints about the personal respondent to the corporate respondent. The termination of his employment was many months sooner than the termination of Ms. Biazrov's and the other staff members' employment in 2012.
3The Respondent, Paris Jewellers Ltd., who is the corporate respondent in all three of the Applications, filed submissions opposing the consolidation of these two Applications with Mr. Fawzy's. Ms. Shiwrat filed submissions that they should be consolidated. No submissions on this issue were received by Ms. Biazrov or by Mr. Crusoe.
REASONS FOR NOT CONSOLIDATING THE THIRD APPLICATION
4Ms. Shiwrat argues that Mr. Fawzy's Application should be consolidated with hers and Ms. Biazrov's:
... all three of our cases are connected. Mr. Fawzy was there during what happen[ed] and so was Ms. Biazrov and they are all witness[es] to the case at hand for harassment and discrimination. Ms. Biazrov is also witness of wrongful dismissal [sic] as well.
5Although the corporate respondent is named in all three Applications, it takes the position that Mr. Fawzy's should not be consolidated with these two Applications. It does not contest the fact that Mr. Fawzy brought the sexual harassment complaints of these two applicants to the corporate employer. It argues that Mr. Fawzy's Application will involve facts and issues which focus on his employment performance, and will involve different witnesses than those focusing on the women's allegations of sexual harassment, and the termination of their employment at a different time.
6While there is some overlap with the Fawzy Application, I agree that it is not appropriate to consolidate it with Ms. Biazrov's and Ms. Shiwrat's Applications given the divergent issues upon which the evidence will need to focus most of the time, and given the corporate respondent's concession that Mr. Fawzy communicated to it the applicants' complaints of sexual harassment. Mr. Fawzy's hearing will not need to include evidence on whether the sexual harassment occurred, or whether Mr. Fawzy reported harassment complaints to the corporate respondent, and whether the corporate respondent appropriately dealt with them; whereas Ms. Biazrov's and Ms. Shiwrat's hearing will need to focus on that evidence. Instead, Mr. Fawzy's evidence will need to focus on whether the corporate respondent intentionally terminated his employment because he claimed or enforced his rights under the Code, or refused to infringe a right of another person under the Code. Mr. Fawzy's Application will not be consolidated with the Applications of Ms. Biazrov and Ms. Shiwrat.
7The parties should note, however, that they may call any witness that they desire, as long as the proposed testimony is relevant to the Applications being heard. It does not matter whether a proposed witness is also a party in another matter set down for another hearing. The parties should also note that they, not the Tribunal, are responsible for arranging that their witnesses appear at the hearing.
ORDER
8These two Applications will not be consolidated with the third Application, that of Mr. Fawzy, 2011-09912-I, which has its hearing set for February 2013. The Tribunal will schedule a separate hearing for these Applications.
DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO DISCLOSURE
9The applicant has made a request for the production of documents. It is premature. If the applicant wishes to pursue it, then she must confirm the request after a Notice of Hearing has been sent to the parties, and after the time for disclosure set by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure (Rules 16 and 17) has passed.
10I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of August, 2012.
"Signed by"
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair```