Brian Bain v. M.F. Arnsby Property Management Ltd., 2015 HRTO 945

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Brian Bain

Applicant

-and-

M.F. Arnsby Property Management Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw
Date: July 16, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 945
Indexed as: Bain v. M.F. Arnsby Management Ltd.

Introduction

1These Applications allege discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The three Applications detail the events that occurred at the applicant’s workplace. The second Application added details with respect to the events that occurred with respect to the applicant’s attempted return to work. The third Application then added the information that his employment was terminated.

3The Applications all result from the same set of circumstances, with updated details added.

Consolidation

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. 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.

5On the material filed with the Tribunal thus far, it is clear that the facts underlying these applications are similar and the issues, whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate him and ultimately by terminating him, are the same. Given the significant overlap in facts and issues, it appears clear that allowing these applications to proceed separately would result in repetitive litigation, the avoidance of which raises a compelling public interest. Additionally, when the respondent filed its Response in 2015-20483-I, it noted it replaced the Response filed in 2014-19596-I. It has not yet filed a Response in 2015-21183-I. In light of this, and given that the parties are the same in all three applications there would appear to be little or no risk of prejudice to the respondents from consolidating the applications or from a single hearing.

6If either of the parties opposes consolidation of these applications, they must provide submissions within two weeks of the date of this decision. If no submissions are received by this date, all three applications will be consolidated and heard together. If no submissions are received and the applications are consolidated, and if the respondent wishes to file one Response that will address the allegations in all three Applications, it may do so. If submissions are received they will be considered and the question of consolidation determined accordingly.

order and direction

7The Applications in Tribunal files 2014-19596-I, 2015-20483-I and 2015-2113-I will be consolidated two weeks from the date of this decision, unless either or both parties file submissions opposing consolidation, no later than two weeks from the date of this decision.

8Unless consolidation is opposed, the respondent may, if it wishes, file one Response to address the allegations in all three Applications, no later than four weeks from the date of this decision.