minicounsel

John Mombourquette v. Innisfil Air Conditioning Ltd., 2010 HRTO 227 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

February 2, 2010

John Mombourquette v. Innisfil Air Conditioning Ltd., 2010 HRTO 227

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination. The respondents raised preliminary issues, including whether the WSIB provided a 'service' under section 1 of the Code and whether a WSIB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1. The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone conference call to hear submissions on these preliminary issues.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

John Mombourquette

Applicant

-and-

Innisfil Air Conditioning Ltd., Chris Luchkiw, Workplace Safety & Insurance Board

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: February 2, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 227

Indexed as: Mombourquette v. Innisfil Air Conditioning

[1] The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”).

[2] The respondents have filed Responses denying the allegations. The respondents have also raised preliminary issues which, in my view, need to be determined at the outset.

[3] The respondent, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), has filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking a dismissal against the WSIB and arguing that it did not provide a “service” for the purposes of section 1 of the Code.

[4] In their Response, the respondents, Innisfil Air Conditioning Ltd. and Chris Luchkiw have requested the early dismissal of the Application because they say a proceeding before the WSIB has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

[5] The Registrar will schedule an oral hearing by way of telephone conference call. The purpose of this hearing is to hear submissions from the parties on the preliminary issues raised by the respondents. Specifically, the parties’ submissions should address:

a. did the WSIB provide a service for the purposes of section 1 of the Code?

b. did another proceeding appropriately deal with the substance of the Application for the purposes of section 45.1 of the Code?

[6] If, at the hearing, any of the parties wish to rely on case law or other supporting material (not already filed with the Tribunal), they are directed to deliver this material to each other and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the conference call.

[7] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 2^nd day of February, 2010.

“Signed By”

Michelle Flaherty

Vice-chair