Piechocinski v. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1519, 2010 HRTO 1207

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Piechocinski Applicant

-and-

Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1519 Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: May 31, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1207 Indexed as: Piechocinski v. Toronto Standard Condominium

BACKGROUND

1The applicant filed an Application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on December 31, 2008. This Interim Decision addresses a request to defer the Application pending the result of an appeal before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

2The applicant was a superintendent with the respondent. On March 13, 2007, the applicant alleges he suffered a workplace-related injury. His employment was terminated on March 15, 2007. The applicant believes his termination relates to his workplace injury. The respondent asserts the applicant was terminated because of a restructuring of his position to improve services to the respondent’s residents.

3The applicant filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour seeking wages, overtime pay, vacation pay and statutory holiday pay, pay for eating breaks and pay for on call. The applicant also claimed he was reprised against because he pursued his rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 and because he suffered an injury at work.

4The Employment Standards Officer released her decision on May 29, 2008. The Officer found the applicant was entitled to overtime pay and additional vacation pay on this pay. The Officer further found that the applicant’s dismissal was not as a result of a reprisal. The applicant appealed this decision. The hearing of the appeal before the Labour Relations Board commenced on January 28, 2010.

DECISION

5Pursuant to section 45 of the Code, 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 must 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.

6The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him because of his disability when it terminated his employment following a workplace-related injury. The respondent asserts these issues are before the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the appeal of the May 29, 2008 decision by the Employment Standards Officer.

7Deferral 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

8Some 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.

9Applying these principles to this case, I find it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the appeal before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. While there are some distinct differences between the appeal and this Application, both proceedings will focus on the respondent’s decision to terminate the applicant. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the facts surrounding this action. The appeal has already commenced and consequently, this Application should be deferred pending its outcome.

10Within 60 days of the completion of the appeal before the Labour Relations Board, the applicant may seek to have this Application brought back for processing by contacting the Registrar-Transition.

11I am not seized in this matter.