Ouellet-Docherty v. Niagara Health System, 2014 HRTO 1685

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Pauline Ouellet-Docherty Applicant

-and-

Niagara Health System Respondent

-and-

Pauline Ouellet-Docherty

-and-

Niagara Health System, Janet Wilmot, Mike Flook Andrea Coutu and Brenda Allan Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: November 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1685

Indexed as: Ouellet-Docherty v. Niagara Health System

APPEARANCES

Pauline Ouellet-Docherty, Applicant

Noel John Hennessy, Representative

Niagara Health System, Janet Wilmot, Mike Flook Andrea Coutu and Brenda Allan, Respondents

Matthew Mihailovich, Counsel

1Application 2014-17177-I was filed on March 20, 2014 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 2014-18786-S was filed on September 16, 2014 alleging a Contravention of a Settlement. The materials filed with the Tribunal indicate that the settlement in question resolved a previous application involving the applicant and the organizational respondent, Tribunal File No. 2011-09132-I. The settlement documents filed with the Tribunal indicate that, amongst other things, the parties came to an agreement regarding how the organizational respondent would accommodate the applicant’s disability related restrictions in the future. The settlement was executed on March 6, 2013. In Application 2014-17177-I, the applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant’s need for modified work following the illumination of her accommodated position. In Application 2014-18786-S, the applicant alleges that the respondents’ actions in sending the applicant home violated the settlement that resolved Application 2011-09132-I.

2By letter dated October 24, 2014, the Tribunal advised the parties that Application 2014-17177-I and Application 2014-18786-S appear to relate to similar facts and issues and indicated that it proposed to consolidate them. The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions by November 7, 2014 if they objected to the consolidation process.

3The applicant’s representative filed submissions objecting to the consolidation process on November 5, 2014. He submitted, however, that the applicant agreed that the applications could be heard together.

4The respondent replied to the Tribunal by letter dated November 4, 2014. The respondents stated that they do not object to the consolidation of the applications, provided that the individual respondents in Application 2014-17177-I do not thereby become parties to Application 2014-18786-S. In my view, this amounts to agreement to hear the applications together.

5Rule 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.

6On the material filed with the Tribunal thus far, it is clear that the facts underlying these applications overlap significantly and may well be identical. Avoiding repetitive litigation is a compelling public interest and, in light of the parties’ agreement, I find it appropriate to hear these matters together.

The applicant’s Representative

7Application 2014-17177-I was filed on behalf of the applicant by Mr. Hennessy and the applicant completed a Form 27 consenting to Mr. Hennessy filing the Application on her behalf. The applicant’s correspondence indicates, however, that the applicant is a client of Mr. Hennessy, who is a paralegal, i.e., that Mr. Hennessy is representing the applicant for a fee. Such representation is of course very common before the Tribunal and it normally raises no issues. However, a person who is seeking to bring an application on behalf of another person may not charge a fee for doing so. See G.M.K. v. Lakefield College School, 2014 HRTO 1581. In his letter of November 5, 2014, Mr. Hennessy clarified that he is acting as the applicant’s legal representative and that the Application and correspondence should reflect this in the future. As a result, I find it appropriate to remove Mr. Hennessy as an applicant to Application 2014-17177-I and to amend the style of cause accordingly.

Order

8The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Application 2014-17177-I and Application 2014-18786-S shall be heard together; and,

2. Noel John Hennessy is removed as an applicant to Application 2014-17177-I and the style of cause is amended, accordingly.

9I am not seized.