C.C. v. [....] Restaurant, 2013 HRTO 1428

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

C.C.

Applicant

-and-

J.L. o/a [….] Restaurant, C.L. and J.L.

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

J.C.

Applicant

-and-

J.L. o/a [….] Restaurant, C.L. and J.L.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 21, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1428

Indexed as: C.C. v. [….] Restaurant

1These are two separate Applications both filed on June 7, 2013 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicants are related. C.C., whose Application is 2013-14655-I, is the mother of J.C., whose Application is 2013-14656-I. Both Applications pertain to C.C.’s use of a service animal at the respondent J.L. o/a [….] Restaurant, C.L. and J.L., where J.L. worked.

The respondents’ failure to file responses

3On June 18, 2013, the Tribunal issued two Notices of Application to the respondents in which it directed that a Response to each Application must be filed with the Tribunal no later than July 24, 2013.

4As of the date of this Interim Decision, the respondents have not filed a Response to either Application, nor has the Tribunal’s correspondence to them been returned.

5An application to the Tribunal starts a legal proceeding. A finding that a violation of the Code has occurred may lead to various orders, including monetary compensation, other forms of restitution to an applicant, and orders to take action to promote compliance with the Code. Failure to file a Response or participate in a Tribunal proceeding may lead to orders against respondents without their participation. The respondents’ attention is drawn to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:

5.5 Where an Application is delivered to a Respondent who does not respond to the Application, the Tribunal may:

a) deem the Respondent to have accepted all of the allegations in the Application;

b) proceed to deal with the Application without further notice to the Respondent;

c) deem the Respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding;

d) decide the matter based only on the material before the Tribunal.

6The applicant has provided an address for contact people for the respondents. The Tribunal shall send a copy of this Interim Decision to the contact people for the respondents by regular mail and courier.

7If the respondents wish to participate in this proceeding, they shall file Responses to the Applications with the Tribunal within 14 days from the date of this Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why the Responses were not filed in accordance with the Notices of the Applications. If Responses have not been received, the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondents and may take any or all of the steps set out in Rule 5.5.

should the applications be heard together?

8The applicants submit that the Tribunal should hear the Applications together, stating that their Applications arise out of similar incidents. As the respondents have not filed Responses to the Applications, they have not filed any submissions addressing the applicants’ request.

9Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that, in order to provide for the fail, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it, the Tribunal may consolidate or hearing Applications together.

10In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal set out 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.

11I find that these Applications should be heard together. There are clearly common and overlapping issues of fact and law and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. Further, the respondents are identical in each proceeding. If the respondents oppose the Applications proceeding together, they should indicate their objection when they file their Responses. Their position will be reviewed by the Tribunal which will determine whether or not the Applications will continue to be heard together or separately.

12I am not seized with these matters.