Winfield v. Sonepar Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 734

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Allison Winfield Applicant

-and-

Sonepar Canada Inc. and Patrick Casey Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Brock Foster Applicant

-and-

Sonepar Canada Inc. and Patrick Casey Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta Date: April 12, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 734 Indexed as: Winfield v. Sonepar Canada; Foster v. Sonepar Canada

1These Applications were filed on March 29, 2010 alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and association with a person identified by a ground protected under 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.

4These Applications involve two applicants; one alleging that she experienced discrimination while in the job and termination for reasons relating to her disability and the other alleging that he was terminated because of his association with her. Both Applications name the same two respondents and there appears to be common issues of fact.

5A Case Assessment Direction was issued directing the parties to provide their submissions on the issue of consolidation. The submissions have been received and the parties consent to consolidation of the two Applications.

6There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

7I am not seized of this matter.