Ronald Ihasz v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Revenue, 2012 HRTO 953

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ronald Ihasz Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Revenue Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Ronald Ihasz Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Revenue/Finance Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: May 11, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 953 Indexed as: Ihasz v. Ontario (Revenue)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Ronald Ihasz, Applicant ) Self-represented Ministry of Revenue, Respondent ) Paul Meier, Counsel

1The applicant filed Application 2011-10019-I (“first Application”) on October 6, 2011 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and Application 2012-10882-I (“second Application”) on February 8, 2012 as against the same respondent.

2The parties have filed correspondence with the Tribunal setting out their respective positions regarding whether or not these two Applications should be consolidated.

3The applicant is opposed to consolidation and submits that the two matters are separate and distinct. The applicant asserts that the respondent seeks to join the Applications because “they know they cannot win the second complaint on its own.”

4The respondent supports consolidation and submits that it is unnecessary to hold separate hearings because these are related matters.

Consolidation

5Rule 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. In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal 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 respondent indicates that consolidation is appropriate; however, the applicant objects. The applicant claims that the first Application deals with different issues than the second Application. The applicant is also concerned that the respondent may be attempting to shore up its position by joining the two matters.

7In my view, the Applications should be consolidated and heard together.

8While the applicant now attempts to deny that the two Applications are related, I note that in his narrative to the second Application the applicant identified the first Application as directly connected to the second Application. The applicant expressly stated that the second Application “is based on the same grounds and is tied into this [second] complaint”. In fact, the applicant’s narrative makes reference to his first Application and implies that the second Application is the result of reprisal.

9The facts of both Applications relate the applicant’s experiences while employed with the respondent and the chronology of events appear to unfold from the first Application to the second. As such, it is likely that the witnesses will be overlapping between both matters.

10I find that the circumstances of these Applications present a compelling public interest to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, as well as considerations of expense, convenience and the risk of inconsistent results. Furthermore, there was no evidence that consolidating the Applications together would result in any significant prejudice to any party.

11Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications be consolidated.

12I am not seized.