HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Megan Hinsley
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program)
Respondent
A N D B E T W E E N:
Trevor Hinsley
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program)
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed as: Hinsley v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Megan Hinsley and Trevor Hinsley, Applicants
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Ontario Disability Support Program), Respondent
Michelle M. Schrieder, Counsel
Introduction
1Application 2011-10373-I was filed by the applicant, Megan Hinsley, on November 29, 2011, and Application 2012-13252-I was filed by the applicant, Trevor Hinsley, on December 14, 2012. Both Applications were filed under section 34(1) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), and allege discrimination on the basis of disability.
2More particularly, the applicants, who are in receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (“ODSP”) benefits, allege that they were subjected to discrimination when the respondent denied them funding to apply for a criminal pardon, which is available to recipients of Ontario Works (“OW”) benefits.
Procedural Background
3By Case Assessment Direction dated June 8, 2012, the Tribunal granted the respondent’s Request for Summary Hearing with respect to Megan Hinsley’s Application, and a Summary Hearing was held on November 19, 2012. Following the Summary Hearing, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 2169, concluding that the matter should move forward to a full hearing. The Tribunal also noted that, given the parties indicated a willingness to mediate, the Tribunal’s Registrar would provide the parties with an opportunity to participate in mediation prior to the hearing of the matter.
4As indicated above, on December 14, 2012, Trevor Hinsley filed his Application with the Tribunal. He also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to consolidate or have his Application heard together with Megan Hinsley’s Application.
5On December 20, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Mediation with respect to Megan Hinsley’s Application, for a mediation to be held on March 27, 2013.
6On January 10, 2013, Megan Hinsley filed an RFOP to consolidate or have her Application heard together with Trevor Hinsley’s Application, and to amend her Application with respect to the remedy sought and her statement of how the alleged events have affected her.
7On January 24, 2013, the respondent filed a Response to Megan Hinsley’s RFOP, taking no position on whether Ms. Hinsley may amend her Application. With respect to the request that the Applications be consolidated, the respondent indicated that it had not yet received a copy of Trevor Hinsley’s Application, and reserved its right to respond to this aspect of Ms. Hinsley’s RFOP, once it received a copy of Mr. Hinsley’s RFOP.
8On February 19, 2013, the applicant requested that this matter move forward to the earliest possible hearing date. On February 22, 2013, the Tribunal confirmed with the parties that it would treat Megan Hinsley’s request as a withdrawal of consent to mediation, and that Ms. Hinsley’s Application would proceed to be scheduled for a hearing.
9On March 4, 2013, the respondent filed a Response to Trevor Hinsley’s RFOP, indicating that it does not oppose the request that the Applications be consolidated or heard together, but reserves the right to oppose it at a later date if it appears that the mattes would be best dealt with individually.
10On March 5, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing with respect to Trevor Hinsley’s Application, and a second Request for Summary Hearing with respect to Megan Hinsley’s Application.
11On March 14, 2013, both applicants filed Responses, opposing the respondent’s Requests for Summary Hearing.
DECISION
Request to consolidate
12Rule 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.
13In 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.
14In their RFOPs to have the Applications consolidated or heard together, the applicants submit that the facts and legal issues in their Applications are identical. The respondent indicates that it does not oppose the request that the Applications be consolidated or heard together, but reserves the right to oppose it at a later date if it appears that the mattes would be best dealt with individually.
15The allegations in the Applications are clearly substantially similar, involving common issues of fact and law, and the Applications name the same respondent. As the respondent is not opposed to the request at this point in time, no issues of prejudice have been raised. As recognized in Persaud, supra, there is a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the above Applications be consolidated.
Request to amend Application 2011-10373-I
16Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that in order to provide for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it the Tribunal may “allow any filing to be amended.”
17In determining requests to amend applications filed under s. 34 of the Code, the Tribunal generally considers the nature of the proposed amendments, the reasons for the amendments, the timing of the request to amend and the prejudice to the respondent. See Dube v. Canadian Career College, 2008 HRTO 336, Wozenilek v. 7-Eleven Canada Inc., 2009 HRTO 926, and Dunford v. Holiday Ford Sales, 2009 HRTO 1563.
18In her RFOP, Megan Hinsley seeks to amend her Application with respect to the amounts of monetary compensation claimed, and her statement with respect to how the alleged events have affected her. Previous decisions of the Tribunal have allowed amendments to Applications, including remedial claims, prior to the commencement of a hearing. See for example, Guzman v. Senton Incorporated, 2011 HRTO 1480, Marino v. Compuware Corporation of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1390, and Liu v. Everlink Payment Services Inc., 2013 HRTO 639.
19I also note that the respondent takes no position on whether Ms. Hinsley may amend her Application, but reserves the right to make responding submissions in the course of the proceedings. The request is also made at a relatively early stage in the proceedings.
20Having regard, in particular, to the nature of the requested amendments, the respondent’s position with respect to the request, and the timing of the request, Megan Hinsley’s RFOP to amend her Application with respect to the amounts of monetary compensation claimed, and her statement with respect to how the alleged events have affected her, is granted.
21The respondent may also file an amended Response addressing the amendments, within 30 days of the date of this Interim Decision, if it wishes to do so.
Requests for Summary Hearing
22The respondent’s Requests for Summary Hearing filed March 5, 2013, with respect to both Applications, are denied, without reasons, in accordance with Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.
ORDER
23The applicants’ RFOPs to consolidate their Applications is granted, and the applicant, Megan Hinsley’s, RFOP to amend her Application is also granted.
24The respondent’s Requests for Summary Hearing with respect to both Applications are denied.
25I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of June, 2013.
“Signed by”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair