Ravlic v. VAC Developments Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1188

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mile Ravlic

Applicant

-and-

VAC Developments Ltd.

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Mile Ravlic

Applicant

-and-

VAC Developments Ltd. and Bill Hristovski

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 8, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1188

Indexed as: Ravlic v. VAC Developments Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mile Ravlic, Applicant

Emily Shepard, Counsel

VAC Developments Ltd. and Bill Hristovski, Respondents

Paula Rusak, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to reactivate his deferred Applications, bifurcate the issues in the Applications, and consolidate the Applications.

2On March 26, 2013, the applicant filed his first Application (File No. 2013-14046-I) under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the organization respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his disability and ethnic origin.

3On May 28, 2013, the organization respondent filed a Response, which denied the allegations of discrimination.

4On October 8, 2013, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1684, which ordered the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) and any related appeals to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “WSIAT”).

5On February 12, 2014, the applicant filed his second Application (File No. 2014-16834-I) under s. 34 of the Code, which alleged that the respondents subjected him to reprisals for having claimed his rights under the Code. He also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that this Application be consolidated with the first Application, and deferred along with it.

6On May 13, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Registrar’s letter, which, on the consent of the parties, deferred the second Application.

7On May 15, 2015, the applicant filed an RFOP, which requested that the Tribunal reactivate his deferred Applications, bifurcate the issues in the Applications, and consolidate the Applications.

8On May 28, 2015, the respondents filed a Response to the RFOP, which consented to reactivating the deferred Applications, but opposed bifurcating the issues in the Applications and consolidating the Applications.

9On June 2, 2015, the applicant filed a Reply to the Response to the RFOP, which consented to reactivating the deferred Applications without bifurcating the issues in the Applications.

10I will deal first with whether the deferred Applications should be reactivated. In my view, they should. Both parties have indicated that because of backlog issues at WSIAT, the applicant’s appeal is not likely to be heard until the latter half of 2017, and a decision is not likely to be rendered until 2018. The Tribunal has recognized that it should reactivate a deferred Application if the proceeding before the WSIB and WSIAT has become unduly prolonged. See Yousefi v. Eugene Collision Limited, 2013 HRTO 1180 at para. 15. This is because deferral is no longer the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application. Such circumstances exist with respect to the Applications at hand.

11According, the parties’ request on consent to reactivate the deferred Applications is granted.

12I will deal next with whether the issues in the Applications should be bifurcated. In my view, they should not because the bifurcation process proposed by the applicant is likely to complicate, rather than, simply the processing and hearing of the Applications. In any case, the applicant has consented to reactivating the deferred Applications without bifurcation.

13Finally, I will deal with the applicant’s request to consolidate the Applications. The respondents are opposed to consolidation because, in their view, there are no common issues of facts or law, and consolidation would result in considerable inconvenience and prolonged uncertainty for the individual respondent, who, in the second Application, is alleged to have subjected the applicant to reprisals, but who was not involved in the issues in the first Application. In my view, the Applications should be consolidated and heard together.

14In 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.

15In my view, the potential prejudice that may result to the individual respondent in compelling him to participate in a single hearing, which will encompass certain issues that he was not involved in, is outweighed by the public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings. In the second Application, the applicant is alleging that the individual respondent subjected him to reprisals for having claimed his rights under the Code by filing the first Application. As such, there are clearly common and connected issues of facts or law, and it makes more sense to consider them in a single hearing rather than two separate hearings.

16Furthermore, rather than filing a second Application, the applicant could have done what most applicants do, which is filing an RFOP to amend his first Application to add the allegations of reprisal. In view of the fact that a hearing has not yet been scheduled, such as request almost certainly would have been granted.

17In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not yet served the second Application on the respondents, the next step is for the Registrar to issue a Notice of Application and deliver the second Application to the respondents. Pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the respondent will then file a Response, and the applicant may then file a Reply.

18The Tribunal therefore makes the following orders and direction:

1. The Applications are reactivated.

2. The issues in the Applications will not be bifurcated.

3. The Applications are consolidated and will be heard together.

4. The Registrar will issue a Notice of Application and deliver the second Application to the respondents.

19I am not seized of this matter.