Frank Hansen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Cathy Sabev, 2009 HRTO 846

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Frank Hansen

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Cathy Sabev

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: June 15, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 846

Indexed as: Hansen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), on March 6, 2009, which alleges that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to services because of his age. The respondents filed a Response on May 11, 2009. The purpose of this Interim Decision is to request written submissions from the parties as to whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of another legal proceeding.

2The Application acknowledges that the facts of the Application are also before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, but requests that the Tribunal not defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of that proceeding. The Response, on the other hand, requests, among other things, that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application.

3Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure states that the Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. The Tribunal will consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.

4In Bhagdasserians v. 674460 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404, the Tribunal made the following general comments about deferral at paras. 18-20:

Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

Some 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 type 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.

5The Tribunal requests that the parties provide written submissions that address whether the Tribunal should defer consideration of the Application pending the outcome of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and/or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

6The Tribunal therefore makes the following Order:

(a) The respondents are directed to deliver to the applicant and file with the Tribunal by June 26, 2009 written submissions, including documents and case law, if any, which address the deferral issue.

(b) The applicant is directed to deliver to the respondents and file with the Tribunal by July 6, 2009 written submissions, including documents and case law, if any, in reply.

7The respondents' request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that it is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction will be addressed, if necessary, after the Tribunal has made a decision with respect to the deferral request.

8I am not seized of this matter.