Chopra v. York University and Jennifer Dalton, 2016 HRTO 708

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paayal Chopra

Applicant

-and-

Jennifer Dalton

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Paayal Chopra

Applicant

-and-

York University

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: May 25, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 708

Indexed as: Chopra v York University and Jennifer Dalton

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Payaal Chopra, Applicant

Megan Evans Maxwell, Counsel

York University and Jennifer Dalton, Respondents

Joanna S. Rainbow, Counsel

1This applicant has filed two Applications 2015-21432-I and 2016-23998-I. The respondent named in 2015-21432-I is an employee of the respondent named in 2016-23998-I. Except for the names of the respondents, these are essentially identical Applications involving alleged breaches of the applicant’s Code rights in the receipt of services.

2A merits hearing of Application 2015-21432-I is scheduled for June 3, 2016.

3On March 29, 2016, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) that the two Applications be consolidated and that the hearing of Application 2015-21432-I be adjourned.

4When the Notice of Application was delivered to the respondent in Application 2016-23998-I, the Registrar directed it to file a Response to the Application and to file a Response to the Request for consolidation by May 31, 2016.

5Given the short time between the date when the respondent was directed in the Notice of Application to file the response to the Request and the date of the hearing in Application 2015-21432-I, the Tribunal directed the respondent to respond to the Request by end of day on May 24, 2016.

6On April 17, 2016, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Request) that the Application be dismissed as abandoned. The Request was based on the fact that the applicant had failed to comply with the Tribunal direction in Interim HRTO Decision 385 to advise the respondent and the Tribunal by April 13, 2016 whether she intended to appear in person at the hearing of Application 2015-21432-I.

7On April 19, 2015, the applicant filed a response to the Request to dismiss and indicated that the April 13, 2016 deadline had been inadvertently missed. As a result of the timing on when the applicant’s counsel had been retained and when HRTO Decision 385 was released, it was not diarized by applicant’s counsel. She confirmed that the applicant will be attending the hearing in person.

Request to Dismiss

8The applicant confirmed her intention to attend the hearing in person within a few days of the date by which the Tribunal had directed her to confirm. She has provided an explanation for the delay in confirming and it is clear that the applicant has not abandoned the Application.

9For these reasons, the respondent’s Request to dismiss the Application is denied.

Consolidation and Adjournment

10The respondents in both Applications agree that the Applications should be consolidated. They further agree that the hearing of Application 2015-21432-I should be adjourned to allow pleadings to close in Application 2016-23998-I and to permit mediation to take place.

11Rule 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.

12In 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 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.

13Applying these factors, I find that the two Applications identified above should be consolidated. There is a factual overlap between the two Applications. 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.

14As the two Applications will now be heard together and pleadings have not closed in Application 2016-23998-I, the hearing of Application 2015-21432-I shall be adjourned from June 3, 2016 to a future date to be determined by the Tribunal.

ORDER

15The respondent’s Request to dismiss Application 2015-21432-I as abandoned is denied.

16The hearing of Application 2015-21432-I, currently scheduled for June 3, 2016, is adjourned.

17Applications 2015-21432-I and 2016-23998-I are consolidated and will be heard together.

18Application 2016-23998-I, now consolidated with Application 2015-21432-I, shall proceed through the normal course.

19I am not seized of this case.