Manon Piche v. Kwik Cash Inc., 2011 HRTO 1341

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Manon Piche

Applicant

-and-

Kwik Cash Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: July 15, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1341

Indexed as: Piche v. Kwik Cash

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”) on March 30, 2011 alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability. The applicant alleges that she was compelled to resign her employment because the respondent employer rejected her physician’s medical opinion and refused to make workplace modifications to accommodate her disability-related needs.

2The respondent filed a Response on May 11, 2011, wherein the respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Application under s.45.1 of the Code on the basis that a Ministry of Labour proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent provided a copy of the Decision by an Employment Standards Officer finding that the applicant was not entitled to overtime or vacation pay. The respondent argues that the Application should be dismissed because the Employment Standards’ Decision demonstrates that the applicant lacks credibility.

3On July 6, 2011, the applicant filed a Reply opposing the respondent’s Request to dismiss. The applicant submits that the Ministry of Labour proceeding did not deal with the human rights issues.

DECISION

4Section 45.1 of the Code provides as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

5The Request for dismissal under section 45.1 is denied. I do not find the conclusions reached in the Employment Standards’ Decision to be determinative of the Application. The Employment Standards’ Decision simply dealt with the issue of entitlement to overtime and vacation pay and did not consider the applicant’s human right concerns; for example, whether there was a duty to accommodate the applicant and whether the applicant’s disability was a factor in her decision to quit her employment. Further, the Decision did not address any issues with respect to alleged discriminatory comments during the course of the applicant’s employment. As such, it cannot be concluded that the Employment Standards’ Decision determined the Code-related allegations in the Application. There is no basis to find that Employment Standards’ proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application and, in particular, the applicant’s human rights concerns.

6Given that both parties have agreed to participate in mediation, this matter will be scheduled for mediation.

7I am not seized of this matter.