Caterina Baccala v. Extendicare (Canada) Inc. and Medex Extendicare, 2010 HRTO 603

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Caterina Baccala Applicant

-and-

Extendicare (Canada) Inc. and Medex Extendicare Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim Date: March 19, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 603 Indexed as: Baccala v. Extendicare (Canada)

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on June 30, 2009. The respondents made submissions seeking early dismissal or deferral of the Application. The Tribunal sought submissions from the applicant but received none. This Interim Decision is based on the respondents' submission.

Dismissal for Incomplete Application

2The respondent alleges that the Application filed with the Tribunal was deficient and should be dismissed. The applicant did not attach the original complaint when she delivered the section 53(5) application to the respondent and did not name the proper respondent in her Application. I exercise my discretion to waive the technical compliance with the Tribunal's Rules on the basis that the respondent has not suffered any prejudice by these omissions which cannot be rectified by the Tribunal. The Tribunal hereby clarifies that the only respondents are as named above and that the complaint relates to DOBR-6MAL6V, to which the respondents have already filed a response with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Tribunal. The Tribunal further clarifies that Helen Villeneuve was not named as a respondent on the original complaint and is therefore not a respondent to the current Application. The style of cause has been amended accordingly.

Deferral

3The applicant alleges that the respondent failed to offer her employment when she recovered from a work-related injury. The respondent asserts that this issue, whether the respondent failed to comply with its obligation under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act ("WSIA") to re-employ the applicant is currently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal ("WSIAT") and that the Tribunal should defer its proceedings until the WSIAT has issued a decision.

4Deferral 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.

5Some 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.

6While the issue of compliance with the WSIA is not identical to the issue of breach of the Code, the issues are sufficiently similar that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer the Application pending the outcome of the WSIAT proceeding.

7Within 60 days of the WSIAT issuing its decision, the applicant may seek to have this Application brought back for processing by contacting the Registrar-Transition.