Wong v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2016 HRTO 1237

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tony Wong on behalf of Wai Chun Lau Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Del Management Solutions Inc., Greg Spearns, George Ewer, Ingrid Romanek and Charlene Jones Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Tony Wong Applicant

-and-

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Del Management Solutions Inc., Greg Spearns, George Ewer, Ingrid Romanek and Charlene Jones Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: September 21, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1237 Indexed as: Wong v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tony Wong, Applicant

Brenda Culbert, Counsel

Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Greg Spearns, George Ewer, Ingrid Romanek and Charlene Jones, Respondents

Gordon Steinberg, Representative

Del Management Solutions Inc., Respondent

Robert Watt, Representative

1The applicant, Tong Wong, filed an Application, 2015-21117-I, on behalf of Wai Chun Lau. He then filed another Application, 2015-21263-I, in his own name. These files are against the same respondents.

2Upon review of the file, the Tribunal has determined that the facts and issues to be determined in these Applications are sufficiently similar that it may be most fair, just and expeditious to consolidate the two Applications. The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on the issue of consolidation.

3The respondents have submitted that they do not object to the consolidation of these Applications. The respondents noted that when separate mediations were scheduled for the two Applications, they rescheduled so the mediations could be scheduled together.

4The applicant objects to the consolidation of these two Applications; however, he provided no reasons for this objection.

5Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure state 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.

6In 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.

7Applying these factors, I find that the two Applications identified above should be consolidated. The allegations in the two Applications are identical. The respondents are the same.

8I note that on June 17, 2015, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to indicate that he wished to file another Application for himself with the same information as mentioned in the Form 1 for Application 2015-21117-I.

9The parties have not raised any issue with respect to prejudice. Consolidating the Applications will relieve the parties and their witnesses from having to attend two separate hearings. For these reasons, the Applications will be consolidated and heard together.

ORDER

10The Applications are consolidated and will be heard together.

11I am not seized.