Michael Pring v. RES Precast Inc., 2010 HRTO 778

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Pring

Applicant

-and-

RES Precast Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: April 8, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 778

Indexed as: Pring v. RES Precast

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability in respect of employment and engaged in reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Code.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Tribunal defer consideration of this Application.

3In its Response dated January 21, 2010, the respondent filed a request that the Tribunal defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of a claim before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”). However, in a subsequent letter dated February 22, 2010, respondent counsel wrote to the Tribunal to advise that the applicant had been returned to work on January 28, 2010 pursuant to a return to work plan developed in conjunction with the WSIB. The respondent submits that in light of the applicant’s successful return to work, the Application may no longer be necessary.

4The 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 (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that legal proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

5In this case, it appears from the material before the Tribunal that the claim before the WSIB was concluded with the development and implementation of a return to work plan of the applicant. It appears therefore that there is no longer any other legal proceeding to which the Tribunal could defer, even if it were inclined to do so. The reason for deferring an Application - avoiding inconsistent findings of fact or law by judicial or quasi-judicial decisions-makers in concurrent proceedings – does not exist where there is no ongoing proceeding before the WSIB with respect to the subject-matter of the Application.

6The respondent’s request to defer is denied. This decision does not prevent the respondent from pursuing its argument that the Application may not be necessary in light of the applicant’s successful return to work.

7The Registrar will set the matter down for mediation.

8I am not seized of this matter.