Lemay v. Tecumseh (Town), 2017 HRTO 1257

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Lemay Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Denis Lemire Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: September 25, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1257 Indexed as: Lemay v. Tecumseh (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Daniel Lemay, Applicant Self-represented

Denis Lemire, Applicant Self-represented

The Corporation of the Town of Tecumseh, Respondent Anna Vannelli, Counsel

1The applicant Daniel Lemay filed Application 2017-26709-I. The applicant Denis Lemire filed Application 2017-26747-I. These files are against the same respondent.

2The applicants have made Requests for Order During Proceedings (Requests) to have these Applications heard together.

3The respondent has agreed that these Applications be heard together.

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 heard together. The allegations in the two Applications raise common issues of fact and law. The respondent is the same in both Applications.

ORDER

7The Applications 2017-26709-I and 2017-26747-I will be heard together.

8I am not seized.