HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maher Hussain
Applicant
-and-
William Osler Health System and Wendy Ross
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Hussain v. William Osler Health System
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maher Hussain, Applicant
Self-represented
William Osler Health System and Wendy Ross, Respondent
Patty G. Murray, Counsel
1The applicant was employed by William Osler Health System and Wendy Ross was his manager. On April 7, 2014 the applicant filed the two herein identical Applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability and creed.
2On September 18, 2014, the Tribunal sought submissions on the issue of whether these two Applications should be consolidated.
3The respondents support the consolidation of the Applications. The applicant opposes consolidation because he says that “the huge personal responsibilities of the first case against the individual may not be properly addressed if it is consolidated with the second case against the organization.” The applicant proposes that the two cases by heard one after the other.
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.
5In 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 (C.H.R.T.), 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.
6Having reviewed allegations in each of the Applications I find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consolidate these Applications. The allegations in the Applications are identical and will require the same evidence. If these Applications are not consolidated it may result in duplicative proceedings and lead to inconsistent results. In these circumstances, I find that it is fair and expeditious to consolidate these two Applications and that they be heard together.
Order
7The Tribunal orders the consolidation of these two Applications and they will be heard together.
8I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 12th day of November, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair