Mohammed Ashfaq Islam, Arif Hossain and Abudl Malik v. Big Inc. cob Le Papillon on the Park and Danielle Bigue, 2012 HRTO 64

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Mohammed Ashfaq Islam, Arif Hossain and Abudl Malik Applicants

-and-

Big Inc. cob Le Papillon on the Park and Danielle Bigue Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: January 11, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 64 Indexed as: Islam v. Big Inc.

1These Applications were filed on February 9, 2011 March 4, 2011 and June 22, 2011 alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). Mr. Islam and Mr. Malik have alleged discrimination because fo race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and creed. Mr. Malik has also alleged reprisal or threat of reprisal. Mr. Hossain has alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin and creed. In their Response, the respondents asked the Tribunal to consolidate or hear the Applications together. By Case Assessment Direction Dated September 30, 2011 (the “CAD”), the Tribunal directed the parties to make submission regarding whether the Tribunal should consolidate or hear the Applications together. 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.

4As noted in the CAD, there appears to be significant overlap in the allegations of discrimination and in the Responses of the respondents. The applicants’ submissions indicate that they agree that the Applications should be consolidated and heard together. 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.