Doyle v. The Shelburne Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1297

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lorraine Doyle

Applicant

-and-

The Shelburne Police Services Board and Kent Moore

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: September 3, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1297

Indexed as: Doyle v. The Shelburne Police Services Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lorraine Doyle, Applicant

Self-represented

The Shelburne Police Services Board and Kent Moore, Respondent

Ian Johnstone, Counsel

1This Application 2013-14995-I was filed on July 17, 2013 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). Application 2013-15088-I was filed on July 26, 2013 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request to consolidate these Applications and to remove the Corporation of the Town of Shelburne from the Application.

2The respondent’s filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on July 8, 2014 seeking an order consolidating these Applications and to remove the Corporation of the Town of Shelburne from the Application. The respondents submitted that both Applications include allegations against the same respondents; in particular they concern the individual respondent’s conduct toward the applicant. The respondents submitted that the issues in both Applications relate to the individual respondent’s management of the applicant over a significant period of time and his decisions regarding various requests the applicant made in that time. The respondents submitted that both Applications would also involve consideration of the Applicant’s conduct. The respondents submitted that separate proceedings would result in duplication of evidence and potentially require witnesses to give evidence twice.

3The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order on August 7, 2014 after being directed to do so by the Tribunal. The applicant consented to the removal of the Corporation of the Town of Shelburne from the Application. Regarding consolidation, the applicant acknowledged that both Applications arise out of her employment with the Shelburne Police and that the respondent’s witnesses may be the same for both Applications. Nonetheless, the applicant submitted that the Applications involve separate issues, which are both important. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that the Applications should be heard separately.

Analysis and Decision

4Rule 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. In 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.

5The parties are the same in both Applications. In Application 2013-14995-I, the applicant alleges that the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related restrictions with light duty work in the spring and summer of 2013. In Application 2013-15088-I, the applicant sets out several incidents of allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards her by the respondents, the individual respondent in particular, between approximately 2009 and July 2013. The applicant attributes this alleged behaviour to sex discrimination. These allegations include the respondents failure to accommodate the applicant in the spring and summer of 2013. Consequently, the Applications overlap directly with respect this allegation. The allegations set out in Application 2013-14995-I appear to be the latest in a long list of complaints the applicant has regarding her employment with the organizational respondent and it appears that the Applications form a factual and chronological continuum. Consolidating the Applications does not mean that the Tribunal affords them less importance. Rather, consolidating related files facilitates the efficient hearing of the matters by avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that these Applications should be consolidated.

Order

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

a. The Corporation of the Town of Shelburne is removed from the Application and the style of cause amended accordingly; and

b. The request to consolidate the Applications is granted.