Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Michelle Boyce Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hillis Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Monika Chestnut Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Glen Seddon and Julie Hillis Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: September 5, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1673 Indexed as: Boyce v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
Introduction
1Application 2011-9665-11 and Application 2011-9666-I were both filed on August 22, 2011 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 services because of sexual orientation. The Respondents have filed two separate Responses denying the allegations in the Applications.
2In a Case Assessment Direction dated August 9, 2012, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties as to whether these two Applications should be consolidated because they relate to the same events.
3All the parties have confirmed in writing that they consent to the consolidation of these two Applications.
Decision
4Rule 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.
5In 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.
6Having reviewed the allegations in each of the Applications, and in light of the parties' consent, the Tribunal orders that these Applications are consolidated and that they will proceed to hearing.
7I am not seized of these Applications.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of September, 2012.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair