Saleh v. London Health Sciences Centre, 2017 HRTO 1431

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deana Saleh

Applicant

-and-

London Health Sciences Centre,

Megan Gowe-Cook and Stephanie MacQueen

Respondents

A N D B E T W E E N:

Deana Saleh

Applicant

-and-

Western University and Karen Ferguson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Esi Codjoe

Date: October 31, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1431

Indexed as: Saleh v. London Health Sciences Centre

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Deana Saleh, Applicant

Self-represented

Western University, Karen Ferguson, London Health Sciences Centre, Megan Gowe-Cook, and Stephanie MacQueen, Respondents

Sari Springer, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be consolidated.

2The applicant filed two Applications alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. Each Application asserts that the applicant was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, creed and association with a person identified by one of those grounds in the context of employment. To that end, she asserts that she was not provided an appropriate place to pray, was subjected to inappropriate comments, was dismissed from a university placement and expelled from the university.

3The respondents jointly requested that the Tribunal consolidate the Applications and hear them together.

4The applicant objects to the consolidation of the Applications. She asserts that it would not be appropriate to consolidate them because each respondent discriminated against or harassed her in a different way.

order

5Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may consolidate or hear applications together in order to provide for the fair, just and expeditious resolution of any matter before it.

6The Tribunal generally considers the following factors when deciding whether to consolidate and/or hear Applications 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.

See Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 25.

7I find that these Applications should be consolidated. They raise substantially the same facts and issues; to that end, the Applications are almost identical apart from some inconsequential variations in wording. There is a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings in this case. Conversely, the applicant made no compelling submissions in support of her position. Accordingly, the Tribunal will consolidate these Applications and hear them together.

order

8For the above reasons, the Applications are consolidated.

9I am not seized of this matter.