Vinayagamorthy Arumugam v. Venture Industrial Supplies Inc., 2011 HRTO 1515

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Vinayagamorthy Arumugam

Applicant

-and-

Venture Industrial Supplies Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: August 15, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1515

Indexed as: Arumugam v. Venture Industrial Supplies Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on October 27, 2009 alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The Tribunal deferred this Application in an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 2317. In Interim Decision 2011 HRTO 1251, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application.

2By way of Case Assessment Direction dated July 15, 2011, the Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify whether or not he was seeking to appeal the decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer (“ARO”) released on April 12, 2011 denying the applicant’s claim for loss of earnings benefits (“LOE”).

3On July 26, 2011, applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal advising that applicant has another representative who “is currently appealing the decision” and, on that basis, the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of that appeal.

ANALYSIS

4The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the appeal’s process. Deferral 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.

5The interrelated nature of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) claim and the Application has been discussed in the previous Interim Decisions and Case Assessment Direction. For example, Vice-Chair Overand noted in the Case Assessment Direction that if the Tribunal was to proceed with the Application, the Tribunal would be considering the question of whether the Application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, on the basis that another proceeding has in whole or in part appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. Section 45.1 of the Code states:

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.

6The section 45.1 issue would likely consider the matters determined through the WSIB process and, in particular, the issue of his LOE benefits. As noted in the Case Assessment Direction, the parties would be required to discuss the apparent discrepancy between their position that the applicant did not work for the respondent after April 6, 2009 and the determination by the ARO that the applicant returned to his pre-injury employer in May 2009 and worked there until he was laid off approximately four months later.

7In the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is of the view that deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with this Application.

ORDER

8The Tribunal orders the deferral of this Application pending the conclusion of the appeals process. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the appeals process.