HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Jack McCann
Applicant
-and-
York University, Gary Brewer, Sharon Hooper, Paul Campbell, and Joanne Cary
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Jack McCann
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees,
David Hylton, Richard Price, and Calvin Traynor
Respondents
Interim decision
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Indexed As: McCann v. York University
1On March 14, 2011, the applicant filed Application 2011-08342-I and asked that the Application be consolidated with Application 2010-07065-I. In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated March 28, 2011, the respondents were directed to provide their position on consolidation.
2In addition, a number of other issues remain outstanding, including: (1) the respondents’ requests to intervene in the respective Application in which they are not named as parties; (2) the respondents’ request to defer Application 2010-07065-I, pending the completion of the grievance process; (3) the respondents’ request to remove the individual respondents in Application 2010-07065-I; and (4) the failure of the individual respondents to file Responses in Application 2011-08342-I.
CONSOLIDATION
3Rule 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.
4In 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.
5As noted above, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties on consolidation. Both the Canadian Union of Public Employees (“CUPE”) and all the named respondents to Application 2010-07065-I have indicated their support for consolidation.
6However, the respondents to Application 2010-07065-I have indicated that their support is conditional on the consolidation being of an “administrative and procedural” nature, rather than “a substantive joinder of the two applications into a single application or otherwise.” They are concerned that there could be potential prejudice to them if there is substantive joinder, since the enlarged allegations could potentially result in further liability to them.
7Indeed, the purpose of consolidation of these matters is to hear the matters together in one proceeding, not to potentially extend liability to the respondents in the respective Applications. Given that clarification, it would appear that the question of prejudice is not an issue.
8There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law, and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Moreover, the parties support consolidation of the Applications. For these reasons, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.
9Both CUPE and the respondents in Application 2010-07065-I have filed Requests to Intervene in the respective Applications to which they were not named as parties. In light of my decision on consolidation,