Downey v. Sandy Acres Resort, 2012 HRTO 1683

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bryan Downey by his Litigation Guardian Adele Downey Applicant

-and-

Sandy Acres Resort and Laila Hillo Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N

Mercedes Corpez Applicant

-and-

Sandy Acres Resort and Laila Hillo Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N

David White Applicant

-and-

Sandy Acres Resort and Laila Hillo Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: September 6, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1683 Indexed as: Downey v. Sandy Acres Resort

Introduction

1These Applications were filed on April 17, 2012 alleging discrimination with respect to contracts and goods, services and facilities because of disability and association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be consolidated.

2Rule 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.

3In 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.

4Except for the names of the applicants, these are nearly identical Applications, involving the same allegations and the same respondents. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

5I am not seized of this matter.