HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Maria Baccega
Applicant
-and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
Parisa Mash
Applicant
-and-
The Crown in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Josée Bouchard
Indexed as: Baccega v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Maria Baccega and Parisa Mash, Applicants
Lai-King Hum, Counsel
The Crown in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Respondent
Stewart McMahon, Counsel
Introduction
1These Applications were filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether these Applications should be re-activated and consolidated.
2Both Applications were filed on March 21, 2016 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and association with a person identified by a ground listed under the Code and reprisal or threat of reprisal. Application 2016-23783-I also alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
3On June 29, 2016, the Tribunal deferred the two Applications on consent of the parties pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.
4On February 17, 2017, the applicants, Maria Baccega and Parisa Mash, in Applications 2016-23782-I (“Baccega Application”) and 2016-23783-I (“Mash Application”), and the applicants Cassandra Charlton and Anisa Capener in Applications 2016-24319-I (“Charlton Application”) and 2016-24347-I (“Capener Application”) filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate the Applications against the respondent.
5On February 28, 2017, the respondent filed a Response to the Request for an Order, indicating that it did not oppose the consolidation of the Baccega and Mash Applications but it opposed the consolidation of the Charlton and Capener Applications with the Baccega and Mash Applications.
6On April 7, 2017, the Tribunal issued Interim Decision Charlton v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2017 HRTO 408 consolidating the Charlton and Capener Applications and noting that the Baccega and Mash Applications were deferred pending grievance proceedings and in the circumstances, the request to also consolidate the Baccega and Mash Applications was not addressed.
7On April 10, 2017, counsel for the applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate the Baccega Application.
8On June 16, 2017, the Tribunal requested confirmation in writing from the applicant that she is seeking to re-activate both the Baccega and Mash Applications.
9On June 20, 2017, counsel for the applicants filed two Requests for an Order During Proceedings requesting to re-activate the Baccega and Mash Applications.
re-activation
10Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states:
Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.
11On March 21, 2017, the applicants received confirmation that the grievances related to them were withdrawn and closed. On April 10, 2017, Counsel for the applicants filed a request to re-activate the Baccega Application. It appears that she failed to file a request to re-activate the Mash Application by inadvertence. She clarified with the Tribunal on June 20, 2017 that she is seeking to re-activate both the Baccega and Mash Applications. The respondent has not opposed the requests to re-activate.
12In the circumstances I find it appropriate to re-activate Applications 2016-23782-I and 2016-23783-I.
consolidation
13Rule 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.
14In Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, [2008 HRTO 25](https://www.canlii.org/