Kelly v. Westmount Hospitality Management Ltd., 2013 HRTO 72

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Meaghan Kelly

Applicant

-and-

Westmount Hospitality Management Ltd. c.o.b. Les Suites Hotel Ottawa

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Shannon Kelly

Applicant

-and-

Westmount Hospitality Management Ltd. c.o.b. Les Suites Hotel Ottawa

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Kristen Ritchie

Applicant

-and-

Westmount Hospitality Management Ltd. c.o.b. Les Suites Hotel Ottawa

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: January 14, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 72

Indexed As: Kelly v. Westmount Hospitality Management Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kristin Ritchie, Applicant

Self-represented

Westmount Hospitality Management Ltd., Respondent

Laura Kraft, Counsel

1These three Applications arise out of the alleged events of July 21, 2012. Specifically, the applicants in the three Applications allege that they were discriminated against because of their age when the respondent refused to permit the applicants to check in because they were under 21 years of age.

BACKGROUND

2In its Response to the Application in Tribunal file 2012-12102-I, the respondent submitted that the Application ought to be dismissed on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application would succeed. In the alternative, the respondent sought to have the Application in Tribunal file 2012-12102-I deferred pending the outcome of Tribunal file 2012-12095-I. In the further alternative, the respondent sought to have the Application in Tribunal file 2012-12102-I consolidated with the Applications in files 2012-12095-I and 2012-12113-I.

3Upon reviewing the files, it appeared to me that consolidation of the Applications in Tribunal files 2012-12102-I, 2012-12095-I and 2012-12113-I might be the most fair, just and expeditious manner in which to proceed, given that all three Applications arise out of the same set of same factual circumstances and the legal issues in the three Applications appear to be the same.

4In responding to the respondent’s Response, the applicant in Tribunal file 2012-12102-I consented to consolidation of the three Applications in question. She also indicated that the applicants in Tribunal files 2012-12095-I and 2012-12113-I consented to consolidation of the three Applications. However, the Tribunal found it appropriate to give the applicants in files 2012-12095-I and 2012-12113-I a specific opportunity to make submissions on whether the Applications ought to be consolidated, and issued a Case Assessment Direction in that regard.

5In addition, in its December 17, 2012 Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal directed the parties in Tribunal file 2012-12113-I (which had been deferred in 2012 HRTO 2056) to make submissions on whether that Application ought to be reactivated such that it might be consolidated with the Applications in Tribunal files 2012-12102-I and 2012-12095-I.

6In accordance with the Tribunal’s December 17, 2012 Case Assessment Direction, the applicant in Tribunal file 2012-12095-I has written to the Tribunal to indicate that she consents to the consolidation of the three Applications in question.

7The applicant in Tribunal file 2012-12113-I has not made submissions as directed and the time for doing so has now elapsed. However, counsel for the respondent has written to the Tribunal to state that both it and the applicant in 2012-12113-I consent to the reactivation of that Application and its consolidation with the other two Applications.

DECISION

8In the circumstances, I find it fair, just and expeditious to reactivate the Application in Tribunal 2012-12113-I and to consolidate the three Applications in Tribunal files 2012-12095-I, 2012-12102-I and 2012-12113-I.

9The mediation previously scheduled by the Tribunal in respect of Tribunal file 2012-12095-I for January 31, 2013 will now deal with all three Applications. Accordingly, the applicants in the three files, their representatives, if any, and the respondent should all attend at the January 31, 2013 mediation. A revised Notice of Mediation will be issued by the Registrar’s office setting out the details regarding the January 31, 2013 mediation.

10In the event that any of the parties are unavailable to attend the mediation on January 31, 2013, they should seek to have the mediation rescheduled in accordance with the information contained in the revised Notice of Mediation.

11I am not seized.