Balloi v. Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, 2012 HRTO 26

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Antonia Balloi Applicant

-and-

Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Antonia Balloi Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: January 5, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 26 Indexed as: Balloi v. Humber College

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these two Applications should be consolidated. The applicant filed her original Application against Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning (“Humber”) on August 15, 2011, and a second Application against the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (the “Ministry”) two weeks later on August 29, 2011.

2Both Applications concern the applicant’s experiences while enrolled as a mature student at Humber. Her Application against the “Ministry” concerns what she alleges is its discriminatory funding of her and its failure to accommodate her special needs relating to learning disabilities. It is her position that the Ministry’s policies and the application of those policies fail to accommodate her needs as a student with learning disabilities.

3The Application against Humber cites many allegations of its failure to accommodate her needs, including but by no means limited to her interactions with the Ministry concerning her funding issues. In addition to citing the ground of disability in her Application, the applicant also alleges that Humber reprised against her for claiming and enforcing her rights, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

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 (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.

6The respondents both support the consolidation of this matter, and so the question of prejudice to the respondents is not a consideration. Indeed, it is the applicant who opposes consolidation. Her submissions on this issue point to the differences between the two Applications, notably the differences in the parties. She then goes on to state that she is concerned about being “overwhelmed by the complexity” of dealing with both Applications at the same time and her ability to organize the information given her problems with working memory and information processing.

7There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings in this case. Moreover, the applicant asserts that the Ministry’s policies and the interpretation and application of those policies by Ministry personnel led to the difficulties she encountered at school. Thus, while many of these difficulties are not directly related to the Ministry’s actions, the applicant has made them its concern by virtue of the remedy she is seeking.

8I am mindful that the matters she raises are, indeed, complex. I am also mindful of the applicant’s assertion that she is more easily overwhelmed. However, the adjudicator assigned to hear these matters has the authority under the Code to give case directions to help reduce the complexity of the litigation. For example, the adjudicator can limit the number of issues and/or documents the parties have to deal with at any one time.

9The balance of convenience favours consolidation. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated. The Tribunal will provide the two respondents with a full set of pleadings from the case in which they were not previously involved.

10I am not seized of this matter.