H.T. v. ES Holdings Inc., 2015 HRTO 86

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

H.T. as represented by litigation guardian S.T.

Applicant

-and-

ES Holdings Inc. o/a Country Herbs

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

J.T. as represented by his litigation guardian S.T.

Applicant

-and-

ES Holdings Inc. o/a Country Herbs

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: January 21, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 86

Indexed as: H.T. v. ES Holdings Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

H.T., Applicant

S.T., Litigation Guardian

J.T., Applicant

S.T., Litigation Guardian

ES Holdings Inc., Respondent

Michael Pass, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

Consolidation of Applications 2014-18456-I and 2014-18818-I

1In a January 15, 2015 letter, which I have treated as a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings, the respondent requested that these Applications be consolidated or heard together because the claims in both arise out of the same set of facts, occurred on the same dates and are based on the same grounds.

2The applicants’ litigation guardian consented to the request.

3Rule 1.7 (d) provides 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.

4In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25, the Tribunal 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.

5In this case, having regard to the submissions made, I am satisfied that there is a strong public interest in hearing these Applications together. The Tribunal shall therefore consolidate Applications 2014-18546-I and 2014-18818-I.

Order

6The Tribunal orders as follows:

1. Applications 2014-18546-I and 2014-18818-I are consolidated; and,

2. Because these Applications already are set for hearings, the respondent shall contact the applicants’ litigation guardian upon receipt of this Interim Decision, and within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties shall advise if they prefer the hearing to be set for these Applications on May 1 or May 15, 2015. The date the parties do not choose shall be cancelled.

3. If the Tribunal does not hear from the respondent’s counsel within 10 days of the date of this Interim Decision, or the parties cannot agree on the date, the Tribunal will set the date for the hearing of these Applications.

4. The Tribunal will deliver to the parties a new Notice of Hearing for both of these Applications to be heard on the same date and at the same time.

7I am not seized.