HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cindy Welykyi Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Z.K. by his next friend T.S. Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

William Bowerman Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

T.S. Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Mimi Marilyn Gow Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Betty Jarvis Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Elsie Biloki Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Debora Crew Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Harold (Mike) Large Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Allan Mageau Applicant

-and-

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors, Laura Borden and Amanda Whalen Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson Date: March 27, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 519 Indexed as: Welykyi v. Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc.

APPEARANCES

Cindy Welykyi, Z.K. by his next friend T.S., T.S., Mimi Marilyn Gow, Debora Crew, Harold (Mike) Large and Allan Mageau, Applicants Self-represented

William Bowerman, Betty Jarvis, and Elsie Biloki, Applicants Debora Crew, Representative

Rouge Valley Co-operative Homes Inc. / Board of Directors, Laura Bordern and Amanda Whalen, Respondents Kiel Ardal, Counsel

Introduction

1These Applications are filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), and allege discrimination in housing. Many of the allegations in the Applications concern the posting of offensive messages at the organizational respondent's premises. The Applications also allege, in essence, that not enough has been done to identify the individual(s) responsible for posting the messages.

2By Request for an Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") filed October 15, 2012, and correspondence dated November 9 and December 12, 2012 requesting that the RFOP be amended, the respondents request that the above Applications be consolidated or heard together.

3On November 9, 2012, the respondents also filed a Request for Summary Hearing, and, on December 18, 2012, they asked that their Request for Summary Hearing be amended to include all of the above Applications.

4The applicants do not appear to have responded to either the RFOP or the Request for Summary Hearing, and the time for doing so has passed.

5The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address both the respondents' RFOP to have the above Applications consolidated or heard together, and their Request for Summary Hearing, with respect to the above Applications. The Tribunal notes that there are two other related Applications in which the Tribunal has been advised that the applicants have passed away. At this time, the Tribunal is addressing those two Applications separately, and this Interim Decision does not address those Applications.

RFOP

6In their RFOP to have the Applications consolidated or heard together, the respondents submit that the Applications are substantially similar as they are largely based on the same facts and allegations, name the same organizational respondents, and seek similar relief. The respondents also submit that they have submitted the same Response for all of the Applications, and one of the applicants, Ms. Crew, is the representative of three of the above applicants. The respondents submit that it would save considerable time and valuable resources to have these Applications consolidated or joined together.

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.

9The above Applications are substantially similar, involving common issues of fact and law with the same organizational respondents. No issues of prejudice have been raised. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders that the above Applications be consolidated.

REQUEST FOR SUMMARY HEARING

10The respondents' Request for Summary Hearing with respect to the above Applications is denied, without reasons, in accordance with Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

ORDER

11With respect to the ten Applications addressed in this Interim Decision, the respondents' RFOP to consolidate is granted, and the respondents' Request for Summary Hearing is denied.

12I am not seized.