Kumarsingh v. MASCO Retail Cabinet Group LLC, 2012 HRTO 725

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

Peter Kumarsingh

Applicant

-and-

MASCO Retail Cabinet Group LLC and Patrick Jakins

Respondents

AND

Peter Kumarsingh

Applicant

-and-

MASCO Retail Cabinet Group LLC, Daryl Vojtush, David Ryan, and Patrick Jakins

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: April 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 725

Indexed as: Kumarsingh v. MASCO Retail Cabinet Group LLC

1This Interim Decision consolidates these two Applications.

OVERVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS

2These parties are involved in two outstanding Applications, filed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

3The first Application, file number 2009-04157-I, was filed on November 23, 2009 (“Application 1”) and alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and family status. In summary, the applicant alleges that the respondents have subjected him to discrimination by failing to accommodate his special needs arising from his family status and requiring him to travel overnight when his young children need him to be at home. He alleges that the respondents have been accommodating white co-workers, but not him.

4The respondents have filed a Response to Application 1, denying the allegations of discrimination. In an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 174, the Tribunal removed all of the personal respondents named in Application 1 except Patrick Jakins. In December 2010, the parties participated in a mediation in Application 1 but were unable to resolve the dispute. Application 1 was scheduled to proceed to hearing in November 2011. In a CAD dated September 9, 2011, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing in Application 1 pending its determination of issues raised in Application 3 (see paragraph 6, below).

5On February 5, 2011, the applicant filed a second Application, file number 2011-08215-I, (“Application 2”) against MASCO Retail Cabinet Group LLC and Patrick Jakins and a number of additional personal respondents. Application 2 was served on the respondents in September 2011. Pursuant to a CAD, the respondents in Application 2 were not required to file a Response.

6In essence, in Application 2, the applicant alleges ongoing failure to accommodate his special needs arising from his family status. He also alleges reprisal. He indicates that his employment with the corporate respondent has ended and alleges that Code-related grounds were a factor in that termination.

7On June 14, 2011, MASCO Retail Cabinet Group LLC and Patrick Jakins filed an Application for contravention of a settlement, file number 2011-09178-S (“Application 3”) against Peter Kumarsingh. In Decision 2011 HRTO 2303, the Tribunal dismissed Application 3. It held that there was no settlement agreement between the parties within the meaning of section 45.9 of the Code.

8In a Case Assessment Direction dated December 23, 2011, the Tribunal directed the respondents to file a Response to Application 2. The Tribunal also invited submissions from the parties regarding whether Application 1 and Application 2 ought to be consolidated and heard together.

9The respondents have filed a Response to Application 2 and the applicant has filed a Reply. In the materials filed with the Tribunal, neither party has taken a position in regards to consolidation.

CONSOLIDATION

10Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hear Applications together.

11In 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 following factors to 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.

12In my view, the two Applications should be consolidated and heard together. There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law and there is a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Neither party took a position regarding the issue of consolidation and there is nothing to suggest that consolidating and hearing the Applications together will result in prejudice to any person.

SUMMARY

13The two Applications are consolidated and will be heard together.

14The Registrar will schedule a two-day hearing, during which the Tribunal will address the merits of both Applications. A Notice of Hearing will be delivered to the parties.

15I am not seized of these matters.