Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Victoria Ocana-Inca
Applicant
-and-
Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud, Martin Dubord and Stéphane Ouellette
Respondents
And B E T W E E N:
Victoria Ocana-Inca
Applicant
-and-
Canadian Union of Public Employees and Denise Carter
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Ocana-Inca v. Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud
1The applicant filed two Applications pursuant to s.53(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”), in which she alleges that the respondents violated her right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of disability.
2The respondent Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud requests that the Applications be deferred under s.45 of the Code on the basis that the issues in dispute were dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) and an appeal from the WSIB decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSIAT) has been commenced. A copy of a February 23, 2010 letter from WSIAT confirming the applicant has commenced an appeal has been provided to the Tribunal. The remaining respondents do not object to deferral of the Applications.
3The applicant has not responded to confirm or deny the existence of an appeal to the WSIAT, nor has she provided a position with respect to the request to defer.
The Relevant Legislation
4Pursuant 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 (Rule 14.1). In each case, 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.
Analysis
4The applicant alleges that the respondents failed to accommodate her with appropriate modifications after a work-related injury. The respondents assert that this issue is currently before WSIAT, and that the Tribunal should therefore defer its proceedings.
5Deferral 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.
6Some 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.
7While the issue of compliance with the legislation of concern to WSIAT is not identical to the issue of breach of the Code, there is sufficient overlap in the factual issues that it would be fair, just and expeditious to defer the Applications pending the outcome of the WSIAT proceeding.
8Within 60 days of the completion of the WSIAT proceeding, the applicant may seek to have these Applications brought back for processing by contacting the Registrar-Transition.
9I am not seized of these Applications.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of April, 2010.
“Signed By”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair