Dikasz v. Eastgate Ford Sales & Service, 2013 HRTO 104

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

David Dikasz Applicant

-and-

Eastgate Ford Sales & Service (82) Company Respondent

And B E T W E E N:

David Dikasz Applicant

-and-

Eastgate Ford Sales & Service (82) Company Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 104 Indexed as: Dikasz v. Eastgate Ford Sales & Service

APPEARANCES

David Dikasz, Applicant Peter Paige, Representative

Eastgate Ford Sales & Service (82) Company, Respondents Stephen Yanover, Counsel

1These are two Applications filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment. In the first Application the applicant alleges the experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of age. In the second he alleges that he was terminated as a reprisal because he filed the first Application.

2A mediation of the first Application is scheduled to take place on February 21, 2013.

3The respondent has written requesting that the two cases be consolidated and the mediation re-scheduled so that both cases can be dealt with at the same time.

4The applicant opposes both requests. The applicant states that the cases should not be consolidated because they are distinct issues and that the mediation should not be delayed.

5I find that it would be most fair, just and expeditious that these files be consolidated and dealt with together. Further, at this stage I see no reason why the mediation should not proceed as scheduled on February 21, 2013.

6Rule 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.

7In 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.

8These Applications involve the same parties. Contrary to the applicant’s view while in a sense distinct, the second Application alleges a reprisal because the applicant filed the first Application. They are clearly connected to each other and will involve many if not all of the same witnesses. Given that these Applications are at an early stage of the proceeding having been filed within weeks of each other there is absolutely no reason why they should not be processed together and a compelling public interest in their being processed together.

9As regards the respondent’s request that the mediation be re-scheduled in my view it would not be appropriate to do so in the circumstances. The respondent articulated no reason why it is necessary to do so. The respondent’s Response (Form 2) is due on February 12, 2013. In the circumstances a direction that the applicant deliver and file his Reply, if any, on or before February 19 would be appropriate but in my view the mediation scheduled can and should proceed as scheduled.

Directions

10The Tribunal makes the following directions:

a. These Applications are consolidated and will be processed together;

b. The mediation scheduled for February 21, 2013 will proceed as scheduled;

c. The Applicant will deliver and file his Form 3 in the second Application, if any, within 7 days of receiving the Form 2.

11I am not seized of this case.