Aikins v. John Zsiros, 2016 HRTO 115

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richelle Aikins Applicant

-and-

John Zsiros Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Kiija Gargarello Applicant

-and-

John Zsiros Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: January 25, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 115 Indexed as: Aikins v. John Zsiros

1These Applications were filed on April 16, and April 29, 2015 alleging discrimination on the basis of age, family status, marital status and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be consolidated.

2On December 16, 2015 the Tribunal invited submissions from the parties about whether or not these Applications should be consolidated. The applicants support consolidation and the respondent opposed it.

3Rule 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.

4In 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.

5Except for the names of the applicants, these are essentially identical Applications, involving the same factual allegations, the same legal issue and the same respondent. The respondent argues that there may be factual differences as between the two Applications – but articulates none. The respondent also argues that there may be other Applications raising the same issue but does not identify any such Applications. In my view, there is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and in these cases nothing to suggest that it would not be appropriate that they be consolidated. The issue between the parties is essentially a legal question. Accordingly, the Tribunal orders these Applications consolidated. These Applications will proceed to a one day hearing. The precise manner in which the evidence and submissions will be introduced will be left to the member presiding at the hearing.

6I am not seized of this case.