Yinong Cui v. MSM, a division of Magna Powertrain Inc., 2008 HRTO 219

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Yinong Cui

Applicant

-and-

MSM, a division of Magna Powertrain Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: November 3, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 219

Indexed as: Cui v. MSM

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario 655 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2C7 Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099 TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168 E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca Website www.hrto.ca

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.19 (the “Code”), which alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability when he was dismissed from employment by the respondent.

2The dismissal occurred several months after a decision made pursuant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A (“WSIA”) by an Appeals Resolution Officer (“ARO”) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, which found, among other things, that certain modified work offered by the employer was suitable and consistent with the applicant’s medical restrictions. The applicant, it is alleged, did not accept this modified work, either before or after the ARO decision. The applicant has appealed the ARO decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”).

3In its Response, delivered to the applicant on October 28, 2008, the respondent asks that the Tribunal dismiss the Application pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, on the basis that another proceeding, the ARO decision, has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. In the alternative, it asks that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application under Rule 14 of its Rules of Procedure pending the outcome of the WSIAT appeal. In the Application, the applicant indicated that he does not wish the Tribunal to defer consideration of the Application.

4It would be inappropriate to deal with the respondent’s request that the Application be dismissed under section 45.1 at this stage. Since it is under appeal to the WSIAT, the ARO decision is not final, and it would be premature for the Tribunal to determine whether the proceedings under the WSIA have appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

5However, it is appropriate to receive submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of the WSIAT appeal. Accordingly, the applicant should include any Response to the request for deferral in her Reply.

Once the Reply is filed or the deadline for filing has passed, the Tribunal may make a decision regarding the respondent’s request for deferral.

6I am not seized of this matter.