Daley v. Aspect Retail Logistics Inc., 2014 HRTO 507

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jaqueline Daley Applicant

-and-

Aspect Retail Logistics Inc Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: April 11, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 507 Indexed as: Daley v. Aspect Retail Logistics Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jaqueline Daley, Applicant No one appearing

Aspect Retail Logistics Inc, Respondent Carissa Tanzola, Counsel

1Application 2013-14519-I was filed on May 21, 2013 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of creed contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). Application 2014-16429-I was filed on December 31, 2014 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and family status contrary to the Code. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s request to consolidate these Applications.

2The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on February 24, 2014 requesting consolidation of the files. The respondent submitted that the applicant consented to consolidation. The applicant did not file a response to the request and the time for doing so has passed. The respondents submitted that the Applications involved the same parties and that the same witnesses and testimony regarding background facts will apply to both Applications. The respondent submit that Application 2013-14519-I provides context for Application 2014-16429-I.

3Rule 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.

4The parties are the same in both Applications. The Applications involve different factual and legal issues, but the incidents set out in Application 2014-16503-I allegedly arise immediately after the alleged incidents on which Application 2013-14519-I is based. Accordingly, it appears that the Applications form a factual and chronological continuum. In these circumstances, and in light of the applicant’s apparent consent, I am satisfied that these Applications should be consolidated.

5The request to consolidate the Applications is granted.

6I am not seized of this matter.