Genny Lynn Badour v. Mike Dean’s Super Food Store and Chris Roberts, 2014 HRTO 675

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Genny Lynn Badour Applicant

-and-

Mike Dean’s Super Food Store and Chris Roberts Respondents

Interim decision

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 13, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 675 Indexed As: Badour v. Mike Dean’s Super Food Store

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Genny Badour, Applicant Anne-Marie Langan, Counsel

Mike Dean’s Super Food Store and Chris Roberts, Respondents Steven Rastin

1This Interim Decision addresses the applicant’s request that this Application be consolidated with the applications filed by two other applicants.

2In her Application, the applicant alleges that the respondents discriminated against her because of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. H. 19, as amended (“the Code”). In particular, she alleges that the personal respondent made discriminatory comments about her family that were based on negative stereotypes about first nations peoples. She also alleges that the personal respondent made discriminatory comments about her visual impairment. Finally, she alleges that her employment was terminated for discriminatory reasons.

REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE

3The applicant has requested that the Tribunal consolidate her Application with an application filed by Michelle McCumber-Light (Tribunal File No. 2013-15955-I) and an application filed by Pam Camillieri, which has yet to be assigned a file number. All three applicants worked for the corporate respondent and have named the corporate respondent and the personal respondent as a respondents to their applications.

4In her Application, Ms. McCumber-Light alleges that the personal respondent made inappropriate sexual comments and advances. She also alleges that the corporate respondent failed to accommodate her fibromyalgia.

5In her application, Ms. Camillieri alleges that the personal respondent made discriminatory comments about members of first nations communities.

6The applicant notes that each of the applicants is expected to testify in support of the applications filed by the two other applicants. The applicant states that each applicant has knowledge of facts that are relevant to the other two applications. According to the applicant, all three applicants will testify to an alleged poisoned work environment existing at the time they were employed with the corporate respondent. According to the applicant, it is in the public interest to consolidate the applications and hear them together as it would avoid the necessity of having the applicants appear to testify before the Tribunal on three separate occasions.

7The respondents oppose the applicant’s request to consolidate the applications and hear them together. The respondent submits that the three applications raise different factual and legal issues. The respondents argue that they would suffer prejudice if the applications were consolidated since Ms. McCumber-Light’s application is scheduled for mediation on July 8, 2014 and a consolidation of the applications would impede settlement of her application. As well, the respondent argues that it has not had the opportunity to investigate Ms. Camillieri’s application since it only received it the day before it received the applicant’s consolidation request.

ANALYSIS

8Rule 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.

9In 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.

10On balance, I do not find it appropriate to consolidate the applications as requested by the applicant. Although the applicant submits that all three applications raise the same legal issue of a poisoned work environment, I find that the three applications in fact raise distinct factual and legal issues. The applicant’s allegations regarding discriminatory comments are factually and legally distinct from Ms. McCumber-Light’s allegations relating to sexual advances and a failure to accommodate her disability. There appears to be a greater overlap between the applicant’s Application and the Application filed by Ms. Camillieri but each application involves a distinct factual matrix. In particular, Ms. Camillieri’s application involves allegations relating to her demotion and alleged panic attacks caused by the respondent’s actions.

11Overall, I find that the public interest weighs against consolidating the three applications. While there may be some inconvenience to the applicants in terms of having to appear to testify on separate occasions, I find that this inconvenience is not sufficient to consolidate the applications. I find that the distinct factual and legal issues raised in the applications weighs in favour of denying the applicant’s request to consolidate them and hear them together.

ORDER

12For all these reasons, the applicant’s request to consolidate three applications and hear them together is denied.