Alessia Di Virgilio v. 1210670 Ontario Inc., 2013 HRTO 248

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio

Applicant

-and-

1210670 Ontario Inc., cob as Scarborough City Cab

Respondent

A N d B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio

Applicant

-and-

Royal Taxi Inc.

Respondent

A N d B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio

Applicant

-and-

Beck Taxi Limited., City of Toronto and Mohammed Bhatti

Respondents

A N d B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio

Applicant

-and-

Crown Taxi Inc.

Respondent

A N d B E T W E E N:

Alessia Di Virgilio

Applicant

-and-

Associated Toronto Taxi-Cab Co-operative Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 11, 2013

2009-03086-I

Citation: 2013 HRTO 248

Indexed as: Di Virgilio v. 1210670 Ontario Inc.

introduction

1The applicant filed five separate Applications against five taxi companies in the Toronto area concerning what she alleges is a discriminatory pricing policy that results in higher prices being charged for accessible cabs. The applicant subsequently asked to consolidate the five Applications.

2The question of whether the five Applications should be consolidated was addressed at a preliminary hearing conference call on February 23, 2012. The respondents in Applications 2009-03081-I, 2009-03083-I, 2009-03084-I and 2009-03086-I are jointly represented by counsel, Carl Peterson. These four respondents consented to consolidation on that call.,

3The respondent in Application 2009-03085-I, Crown Taxi Inc., did not participate in that call. At the time, the Tribunal’s records reflected that the respondent was represented by counsel, D. Russ Makepeace. In response to subsequent inquiries from the Tribunal concerning his failure to appear, Mr. Makepeace’s office indicated he had written to the Tribunal indicating he was no longer counsel of record. This letter was not received by the Tribunal (or the applicant), which asked Mr. Makepeace to re-send this document or otherwise confirm that he was no longer counsel of record. No such document was sent in in response to this request, or to the direction to do so set out in my Interim Decision dated March 19, 2012 (2012 HRTO 571).

4In any event, corporate counsel for Crown Taxi Inc., Stefanie Chin-Yick, communicated with the applicant’s counsel in late 2012 and participated in a conference call on January 17, 2013. At that conference call, Ms. Chin-Yick confirmed that on the relevant date, Crown Taxi Inc. was operating the business. Previously, the respondent had taken the position that the entity known as Crown Taxi was operated by Fareport Capital Inc. (“Fareport”) on the date in question.

5However, Crown Taxi Inc. continues to take the position that it was improperly named as a respondent because on the date named in the Application it alleges it did not operate any accessible cabs, and that any customers calling Crown Taxi’s dispatch asking for such a service would be directed to an independent company. Subsequent to the call, in response to a direction from me, Crown Taxi brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) asking to be removed as a respondent. Since it is the only respondent named in Application 2009-03085-I, this request amounts to a request for dismissal of the Application.

6Crown Taxi was directed, by Case Assessment Direction dated January 22, 2013, to indicate its position on consolidation by February 4, 2013, failing which the Tribunal would determine the issue of consolidation without its input. It has not made any submissions on the issue of consolidation and the time for so-doing has now passed.

decision and Analysis

7Rule 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.

8In 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.

9There are clearly common issues of fact and law with respect to the four Applications where the parties consented to consolidation. Moreover, the respondents are jointly represented, which greatly assist in reducing the length and complexity for all participants. Accordingly, Applications 2009-03081-I, 2009-03083-I, 2009-03084-I and 2009-03086-I are consolidated.

10With respect to the Application 2009-03085-I, it is not clear that the issues of fact and law in that case are common to the other four Applications. Although on its face, the allegations against Crown Taxi Inc. are identical to those against the remaining four respondents, it takes the position that it does not operate any accessible cabs. This issue will have to be resolved as a preliminary issue. Rather than further delaying the hearing of the four Applications while this preliminary issue is determined, it makes more sense at this point to simply hold two separate proceedings.

order

11Applications 2009-03081-I, 2009-03083-I, 2009-03084-I and 2009-03086-I are consolidated. Application 2009-03085-I will proceed separately.