Krizan v. Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services, 2016 HRTO 1540

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lydia Krizan Applicant

-and-

Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Lydia Krizan Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police) Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: November 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1540

Indexed as: Krizan v. Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services

1In both Applications, which were both filed on July 22, 2016, the applicant alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Tribunal issued correspondence to the parties seeking submissions about whether or not the Applications should be consolidated or heard together. The respondent Essex-Windsor Emergency Medical Services wrote objecting to the Applications being consolidated, but not objecting to them being heard together. Neither the applicant nor the respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ontario Provincial Police) filed submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

analysis

3Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”) 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, 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.

4While the respondents are not the same, their interests may not align, and the legal issues may differ, the issues arise out of similar facts that occurred on the same date. In the circumstances of these Applications, it is appropriate to hear the two Applications together.

5There is the potential of duplication of evidence if the Applications are not heard together, with the potential for inconsistent findings, and there is the public interest in the Tribunal avoiding multiplicity of proceedings based upon similar facts.

6Accordingly, I find that it is most fair and expeditious that the Applications be heard together.

7The respondent OPP has not marked off that it is agreeable to mediation. By December 9, it must advise the Tribunal, copying the applicant, whether it is interested in participating in a joint mediation, with separate mediation rooms for the respondents.

8If the respondent OPP is not agreeable to mediation, the Applications will proceed to the next step in the Tribunal’s process.