Janeczko v. General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, 2015 HRTO 1711

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jan Janeczko Applicant

-and-

The General W Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, Boleslaw Dranski and Teresa Fajfer Respondents

AND B E T W E E N:

Jan Janeczko Applicant

-and-

The General W Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, Boleslaw Dranski, Stan Nieradka and Walter Skomra Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: December 17, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1711 Indexed as: Janeczko v. General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jan Janeczko, Applicant Self-represented

The General W Sikorski Polish Veterans Association, Respondent Stan Nieradka, Representative

Stan Nieradka, Respondent Self-represented

Boleslaw Dranski, Respondent Self-represented

Teresa Fajfer, Respondent Self-represented

Walter Skomra, Respondent Self-represented

1The applicant has filed two Applications. This Interim Decision determines whether to hear the two Applications together.

BACKGROUND

2File 2015-21973-S is filed under section 49.5(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) and alleges the respondents, The General W. Sikorski Polish Veterans Association (“the Association”), Boleslaw Dranski (“Dranski”) and Teresa Fajfer have contravened a settlement reached with the applicant in respect of an earlier Application 2014-17069-I (“the breach of settlement Application”).

3File 2015-22053-I is filed under section 34 of Code alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of reprisal or threat of reprisal (“the reprisal Application”) against the Association, and Dranski as well as the respondents Stan Nieradka and Walter Skomra.

4On October 7, 2015 the Registrar wrote to the parties seeking their submissions on whether the two Applications should be consolidated.

5The applicant did not respond.

6All respondents oppose the consolidation on the basis some members of the Association named in one Application are not named in the other Application. They submit that consolidation will prejudice the members of the Association but have not provided any explanation of how this prejudice may arise.

ANALYSIS

7In Rule 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.

8The respondents in both Applications are the same except for Stan Nieradka and Walter Skomra who are not named respondents in the breach of settlement Application. Teresa Fadjer is not a respondent to the reprisal application.

9I find that there would be no prejudice to the parties if the two Applications are consolidated. Both Applications arise out of essentially the same set of facts. In both, the applicant alleges that his rights and privileges as a member of the Association have been infringed through the respondents’ failures to comply with Minutes of Settlement and through the actions of the respondents as members of the Association. Having the Applications consolidated will avoid the potential for repetition of evidence.

10Both Applications will require the adjudicator to make findings of credibility between the applicant and the respondents who are named as individual respondents and who are representatives for the Association. There is the possibility of inconsistent findings between these witnesses if the two Applications are not consolidated.

11In addition to the duplication of evidence, there is the public interest in the Tribunal avoiding multiplicity of proceedings based upon similar facts.

12Accordingly, I find that it is most fair and expeditious that the Applications be heard together.

13As the parties have agreed to mediation in the reprisal Application, the consolidated files will proceed to mediation.

14I am not seized.

ORDER

The Tribunal orders:

a. The Application 2015-21973-S and Application 2015-22053-I consolidated.

b. The Registrar will schedule mediation for the consolidated Applications.