Theodore LeBlanc v. Honda of Canada Mfg., 2009 HRTO 812

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Theodore LeBlanc

Applicant

-and-

Honda of Canada Mfg.

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: June 10, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 812

Indexed as: LeBlanc v. Honda of Canada

Reasons for Decision

1This Interim Decision deals with an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”). The Application was filed on March 24, 2009, and alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability. The Tribunal Registrar noted that the applicant was pursuing an appeal at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal in regards to matters relevant to the Application and issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, dated May 21, 2005. The parties were asked to file written submissions regarding whether the Application should be deferred. Those submissions have now been received and this Interim Decision addresses the deferral issue.

2The events giving rise to the Application are grounded in a work-related injury on August 4, 2005. The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to accommodate his disability. Following the injury, the worker filed a claim with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). The WSIB eventually determined that the applicant had refused to accept suitable work that was offered by the respondent and refused to participate in assessments that might clarify the nature of his physical restrictions. His entitlement to benefits ended on that basis.

3The applicant appealed the decision of the WSIB to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT). A hearing at WSIAT was held in May 2009. According to the respondent, the parties have been asked to make written submissions on the appeal. A decision on the appeal is expected after the submissions have been received by WSIAT.

4Factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal include 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, the main issue before WSIAT is whether the worker refused to accept suitable work. The answer to that question seems highly relevant to the issues raised in the Application. There has been a hearing at WSIAT and a decision is pending. Since that decision will deal with matters that are highly relevant to the issues raised in the Application, I find that the Application should be deferred.

6The Tribunals’ Rules 14.3 and 14.4 outline the process by which a party may bring the Application back on before the Tribunal after the WSIAT appeal has been concluded.