Minhas v. Shiu Pong Management Limited, 2016 HRTO 242

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Rajinder Minhas Applicant

-and-

Shiu Pong Management Limited Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Rajinder Minhas Applicant

-and-

Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 870 Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: February 24, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 242 Indexed as: Minhas v. Shiu Pong Management Limited

1These Applications were filed on January 5, 2016, alleging a breach of settlement and filed pursuant to section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be consolidated.

2On January 25, 2016, the Tribunal invited submissions from the parties about whether or not these Applications should be consolidated. The respondents support consolidation and the applicant opposes 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 respondents, these are essentially identical Applications, involving an alleged breach of the Minutes of Settlement by the respondents. The applicant argues that his original Application only identified one of the respondents, Shiu Pong Management Limited, and that all of the allegations in that Application related to the conduct of the an employee of this respondent. The applicant argues that Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 870 only became involved in the mediation resulting in the allegedly breached Minutes of Settlement.

6Despite the applicant’s arguments, he has identified both respondents in separate but identical Applications alleging a breach of settlement by both who are both signatories to the Minutes of Settlement. The fact that the original Application giving rise to the Minutes of Settlement identified only one of the respondents is not material at this stage. The issue in this case will be not what the allegations were or against whom but whether as alleged the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement. I

7In my view there is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and in these cases there is nothing to suggest that it would not be appropriate that they be consolidated. What the applicant proposes is to have two separate hearings involving identical factual and legal issues leading conceivably to inconsistent findings of fact and law.

8Accordingly, 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.

9I am not seized of this case.