Potomski v. Menzies, 2015 HRTO 1092

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

R.J. Potomski

Applicant

-and-

Alexander Menzies and Kit Cheung

Respondents

BETWEEN:

R.J. Potomski

Applicant

-and-

Alexander Menzies

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: August 17, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1092

Indexed as: Potomski v. Menzies

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

R.J. Potomski, Applicant

Self-represented

Alexander Menzies and Kit Cheung, Respondents

Shawn Weston, Representative

Introduction

1This Interim Decision addresses the issue of whether these Applications should be consolidated and heard together.

2The first Application filed by the applicant (2015-20391-I) was filed against Alexander Menzies and Kit Cheung. It alleges harassment on the basis of sex in the social area of contracts. The second Application filed by the applicant (2015-20990-I) was filed against Alexander Menzies and alleges reprisal resulting from the first Application.

3By letter dated July 13, 2015, the Tribunal sought the parties’ positions on whether the Applications should be consolidated. The applicant opposes consolidation. The respondents consent to having the matters consolidated.

analysis

4Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure sates 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, with the exception of Kit Cheung. The second Application flows from the first Application: the applicant alleges that the respondent in the second Applicant threatened not to pay him for services rendered and he was at risk of losing further income because of the first Application. There is a factual overlap between the two Applications. The respondents have not raised any issue with respect to prejudice even though Kit Cheung is a respondent in the first Application and not the second. Consolidating the Applications will relieve the parties and their witnesses from having to attend two separate hearings. For these reasons, the Applications will be consolidated and heard together.

ORDER

7The Applications are consolidated and will be heard together.

8I am not seized.