Rutherford v. Kawartha Participation Projects, 2016 HRTO 1569

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Peter Rutherford

Applicant

-and-

Kawartha Participation Projects

Respondent

AND B E T W E E N:

Peter Rutherford

Applicant

-and-

Kawartha Participation Projects

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: December 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1569

Indexed as: Rutherford v. Kawartha Participation Projects

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Peter Rutherford, Applicant

Kimberly Ruiter, Counsel

Kawartha Participation Projects, Respondent

Christopher Edwards, Counsel

Stan Nieradka, Representative

1The applicant has filed two Contravention of Settlement Applications. This Interim Decision determines whether these two Applications should be heard together.

BACKGROUND

2File 2015-22499-S was filed under section 49.5(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) and alleges the respondent, has contravened a settlement reached with the applicant in respect of an earlier complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission numbered SYRS-5WWJ63.

3File 2016-25657-S was filed under section 49.5(3) of the Code and alleges the respondent has further contravened a settlement reached in SYRS-5WWJ63 and sets out allegations of contravention which have occurred since the Application in File 2015-22499-S was filed.

4The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) that these two Application be heard together.

5The respondent consents to having these two Applications heard together.

ANALYSIS

6In Rule 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.

7I find that there would be no prejudice to the parties if the two Applications are consolidated. The parties in both Applications are the same. The allegations set out in 2016-25657-S are further allegations of breach of the same Minutes of Settlement that are the subject of the allegations set out in 2015-22499-S.

8In both, the applicant alleges that his rights and privileges have been infringed through the respondent’s failures to comply with Minutes of Settlement. Having the Applications consolidated will avoid the potential for repetition of evidence.

9Both Applications will require the adjudicator to make findings of credibility between the applicant and the respondent. There is the possibility of inconsistent findings if the two Applications are not consolidated.

10In addition to the duplication of evidence, there is the public interest in the Tribunal avoiding multiplicity of proceedings based upon similar facts.

11Accordingly, I find that it is most fair and expeditious that the Applications be heard together.

12I am not seized.

ORDER

13The Tribunal orders:

a. The Application 2015-22499-S and Application 2016-25657-S are consolidated.