Amanogho v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 422

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Sunday Amanogho Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Police Constable Catenaccio and Police Constable Vanspall Respondents

Ukwuani F. Ifeanyi Applicant

-and-

Toronto Police Services Board, Police Constable Catenaccio, Police Constable Vanspall Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene Date: March 12, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 422 Indexed as: Amanogho v. Toronto Police Services Board

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of two Applications filed respectively on April 24, 2012 and May 1, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to goods, services or facilities because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship and ethnic origin. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be consolidated.

2Rule 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.

3In 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.

4There is a significant overlap of relevant allegations of facts in respect of these Applications, and they involve the employment of both applicants with the same respondent. They were mediated together; no settlement resulted. There are clearly common issues of fact and law and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. The parties request that the Applications be consolidated for hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

ORDER

5The Tribunal orders that Applications 2012-11427-I and 2012-11428-I be consolidated.

6I am not seized of this matter.