Hajifazul v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2014 HRTO 338

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Abdulziad Hajifazul Applicant

-and-

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: March 12, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 338 Indexed as: Hajifazul v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Abdulziad Hajifazul, Applicant Grace Vaccarelli, Counsel

Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, Respondent Jonathan Rabinovitch, Counsel

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the issue of consolidation. The Tribunal indicated its intention to consolidate the two Applications by letter dated October 29, 2013. The parties were given an opportunity to file submissions in the event that they opposed consolidation. The applicant filed submissions in support of consolidation. The respondent filed submissions opposing consolidation.

2In both Applications the applicant alleges reprisal against the respondent for filing previous human rights applications. In 2013-14395-I, the applicant alleges that his employment contract was not extended because of his participation in a previous human rights application. In 2013-15507-I the applicant alleges that he was denied employment in subsequent job competitions for the same reason.

Consolidation Request

3The applicant supports consolidation because of the overlap between the legal and factual issues in the two Applications. The respondent opposes consolidation on the basis that the factual issues in the two Applications are distinct.

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 (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.

6Applying these factors, I find that the two Applications identified above should be consolidated. The parties are the same. The subject matter of the both Applications is the same: the applicant alleges that his attempts to secure employment with the respondent have failed because of his involvement in a previous human rights application. For these reasons, they should be consolidated and heard together.

ORDER

7For the reasons set out above the Tribunal orders:

a. Applications 2013-14395-I and 2013-15507-I are consolidated and will be heard together.

8I am not seized.