Doyle v. Syncreon Canada Inc., 2014 HRTO 894

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tracy Doyle

Applicant

-and-

Syncreon Canada Inc.

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Elizabeth Garant

Applicant

-and-

Syncreon Canada Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: June 17, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 894

Indexed as: Doyle v. Syncreon Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tracy Doyle and Elizabeth Garant, Applicants

Shawn Weston, Representative

Syncreon Canada Inc., Respondent

Nancy Jammu-Taylor, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the two Applications should be consolidated and heard together.

2The applicants filed separate Applications under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Both Applications alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The applicants requested that the Tribunal consolidate and hear the two Applications together.

3The respondent filed separate Responses to the Applications, which denied the allegations of discrimination. The respondent also opposed consolidating and hearing the two Applications together.

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.

6In my view, the two Applications should not be consolidated and heard together. Although there are some basic similarities between the two Applications in that both applicants were employed by the respondent, both applicants suffered workplace injuries, both applicants had disabilities, and the respondent terminated the employment of both applicants, the individual facts in the two Applications do not overlap whatsoever, and the specific issues set out in the two Applications are actually quite different. In these circumstances, I cannot see how it is in the public interest or fair to the respondent to grant the applicants’ request.

7Accordingly, the applicants’ request to consolidate and hear the two Applications together is denied.

8I am not seized of this matter.