William Dingle v. Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, 2016 HRTO 467

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William Dingle Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

William Dingle Applicant

-and-

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

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: April 13, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 467 Indexed as: Dingle v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

William Dingle, Applicant Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent Felix Lau, Counsel

1This applicant has filed two separate Applications, 2014-18954-I and 2015-21742-I, against the same respondent.

2Upon review of the file, the Tribunal has determined that the 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 by April 5, 2016.

3The respondent does not object to the consolidation of these Applications. The applicant has not made submissions on the issue and the time by which the parties were directed to make such submissions has now passed.

4Rule 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.

5In 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.

6Applying these factors, I find that the two Applications identified above should be consolidated. The parties are the same. There is a factual overlap between the two Applications. The respondents 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.

7The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) for a dismissal of Application 2014-18954-I pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the applicant filed a previous application at the Tribunal that was based on the same set of facts and issues and that these were fully and finally settled through signed Minutes of Settlement on October 24, 2013. Submissions on this Request have been filed by both parties.

ORDER

8The Applications are consolidated and will be heard together on May 24, 2016 in Toronto.

9The Request for dismissal of 2014-18954-I will be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

10The parties must disclose and file witness Statements and documents to be relied on for both Applications by April 25, 2016.

11I am not seized.