Wheaton v. Ottawa (City), 2014 HRTO 398

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between: Stephanie Wheaton, Applicant -and- The City of Ottawa, Respondent

And Between: Paul Perreault, Applicant -and- The City of Ottawa, Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 20, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 398 Indexed as: Wheaton v. Ottawa (City)

1These Applications were filed on May 8, 2013 alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be consolidated.

2Rule 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. The applicants have indicated that they are willing to have the applications consolidated.

3In 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.

4These Applications are not identical, but there is significant overlap regarding the issues and facts. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and, accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated.

5I am not seized of this matter.