Tsofias v. Toronto Centre for Phenogenomics, 2009 HRTO 788

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gus Tsofias

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Centre for Phenogenomics and Mount Sinai Hospital

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 8, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 788

Indexed as: Tsofias v. Toronto Centre for Phenogenomics

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request that an Application be deferred. The Application was filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on April 23, 2009 and alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2The respondents filed a Response and asked the Tribunal to defer the Application until various matters have been resolved by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). The applicant opposes the deferral.

3According to the information provided by the respondents, the applicant filed two different claims with the WSIB during the period of his employment. The first concerns a left arm injury that occurred in October 2008 and the second concerns a claim for a stress-related disability that the worker claimed was work-related. The WSIB determined that the applicant was not entitled to benefits for the stress-related disability on the grounds that the claim did not meet the criteria for allowance of such claims. Entitlement to benefits was granted for the left arm injury and a return to work program was started. The applicant's employment was terminated in December 2008. The WSIB determined that the termination was not related to the applicant's left arm injury. According to the respondents, the applicant has filed an appeal with the WSIB in regard to that decision. The respondents submit that the Tribunal should defer the Application until the appeal process is complete.

4Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

5In this case, there is likely some overlap between the workplace safety and insurance issues and the issues raised in the Application and some of the findings of the WSIB or Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) may be relevant to the Application. However, it appears that the matters raised in the Application go beyond the matters that are currently the subject of an appeal at the WSIB. The WSIB is primarily concerned with work-related injuries and disabilities. The Code pertains to discrimination on the basis of disability without regard to whether the disability is work-related.

6According to the information from the respondents, the appeal that has been filed at the WSIB concerns whether the work-related arm injury was a factor in the end of the applicant's employment with the respondent. A final answer to that question, while relevant, would not necessarily resolve the question of whether there was discrimination on the basis of other disabilities, including the stress-related disability that the applicant claims to have suffered. It would also not necessarily resolve the allegations of reprisal or threat of reprisal.

7For these reasons, I find that it is not appropriate to defer the Application at this time.