HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
J.D.
Applicant
-and-
The Ultimate Cut Unisex and Rocky Valentini
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
E.D. by her next friend M.D.
Applicant
-and-
The Ultimate Cut Unisex and Rocky Valentini
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Rebecca Goldshmidt
Applicant
-and-
The Ultimate Cut Unisex and Rocky Valentini
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Cheri Davies
Applicant
-and-
The Ultimate Cut Unisex and Rocky Valentini
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: J.D. v. Ultimate Cut Unisex
APPEARANCES
J.D., Applicant
Self-represented
E.D., Applicant
M.D., Next Friend
Cheri Davies, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This Interim Decision relates to four files, all of which involve allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination with respect to employment. A conference call was scheduled to address a number of issues, including whether all of the Applications should be consolidated and whether J.D. had the legal authority to initiate an Application on behalf of her sister E.D.
2The telephone conference was held on July 30, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. The applicant Rebecca Goldshmidt and the two respondents did not call in.
3On September 10, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (the “CAD”) to the parties which states at para. 13:
In the circumstances, the Tribunal directs as follows:
A copy of the Application, Response, correspondences and the previous Case Assessment Directions will be sent to M.D. together with this Case Assessment Direction;
Within 14 days, of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, M.D. must file a Form 10, Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to substitute himself as the individual filing the Application on behalf of the minor E.D. M.D. should also include a properly filled out Form 4;
M.D. should provide written submissions explaining his position with respect to the consolidation of these Applications;
Rebecca Goldshmidt must confirm in writing to the Tribunal within 14 days of this Case Assessment Direction that it is her intention to proceed with her Application; and
The respondents must immediately forward to the Tribunal their new contact information.
4On September 17, 2012, the Tribunal received a Request for an Order during Proceedings in which M.D. seeks to substitute himself as litigation guardian and/or next friend for his minor daughter E.D. (“M.D.’s Request for Order”).
5This Interim Decision addresses the following issues:
a. M.D.’s Request for order;
b. Whether the Application filed by Rebecca Goldshmidt should be dismissed as abandoned;
c. Whether the Applications should be consolidated and/or heard together.
M.D.’s Request for order
6M.D. has provided the Tribunal together with his Request for Order a completed Form 4, in which he identifies himself as E.D.’s father and indicates that he wishes to proceed with this Application on behalf of E.D. The respondents have not filed a Form 11, response to M.D.’s Request for Order and therefore it is unopposed.
7Having reviewed this matter I am satisfied that M.D. has the legal authority to represent E.D. and that it is fair and just in these circumstances that he be substituted as her next friend.
Rebecca Goldshmidt
8Rebecca Goldshmidt did not attend the conference call. During the call J.D. advised that she believed that Ms. Goldshmidt had abandoned the Application. Ms. Goldshmidt has not complied with the directions in the CAD since she has failed to advise the Tribunal that she is proceeding with her Application.
9I am satisfied that the CAD was sent to Ms. Goldshmidt. She was warned in the CAD that if she failed to contact the Tribunal to confirm that she was proceeding with her Application that it could be dismissed as abandoned. In these circumstances, Ms. Goldshmidt’s Application is dismissed.
Consolidation
10All of the remaining applicants support the consolidation of their Applications. The respondents have filed no submissions with respect to this issue.
11Rule 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.
12In 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.
13Having reviewed allegations in each of the Applications and in light of the applicants’ consent, I find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consolidate these Applications. There are common issues of facts and law which are raised in each Application against the same respondents. If these Applications are not consolidated it may result in duplicative proceedings and lead to inconsistent results. In these circumstances, I find that it is fair and expeditious to consolidate the remaining three Applications and that they be heard together.
Order
14The Tribunal orders as follows:
a. M.D. is substituted as E.D.’s next friend and the style of cause is accordingly amended to reflect this change;
b. Rebecca Goldshmidt’s Application is dismissed, and the style of cause shall be amended in any future decision to remove her name; and
c. The remaining three Applications are consolidated and shall be referred to a hearing on the merits were they will be heard together.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of October, 2012.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair