HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kazimierz Parda

Applicant

-and-

Magna International Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: February 4, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 246

Indexed as: Parda v. Magna International

[1] This Interim Decision addresses the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of a claim filed by the applicant under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 S.O. 1997 c. 16, Schedule A, as amended (WSIA).

[2] The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of place of origin, ethnic origin and disability. In its Response, the respondent noted that the applicant has filed a claim for benefits under the WSIA and that it appears that the claim under the WSIA appears to arise out of the same factual basis as those alleged in the Application filed with this Tribunal. The respondent advised that the applicant has appealed a decision of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT). The respondent asked the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Application until the completion of the appeal process at WSIAT.

[3] The applicant filed a Reply but did not reply to the respondent’s deferral request.

Conclusions

[4] The Tribunal has consistently found that the fact that an applicant has started a different process arising out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the Application is not in and of itself a reason to defer dealing with an Application.

[5] In Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, [2008 HRTO 411](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/411), the Tribunal stated:

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. Some 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 types 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.

[6] The materials filed with the Application include a submission that appears to have been prepared for a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer on behalf of the applicant. The submissions deal with allegations that are similar to the allegations in the Application. The applicant did not provide a copy of a decision of an Appeals Resolution Officer. The respondent has not provided a copy of such a decision either, but the respondent advises that the applicant has filed an appeal of a decision of an Appeals Resolution Officer with the WSIAT, and has provided a letter from a WSIAT Early Review Officer, dated July 27, 2010, indicating that an appeal has been filed with the WISAT and is being processed.

[7] It therefore appears that there is an ongoing process under the WSIA dealing with matters that arise out of the same factual basis as the events giving rise to the Application. The WSIAT is the final level of appeal under the WSIA.

[8] It is generally not fair to require parties to be involved in more than one proceeding dealing with substantially the same issues at the same time. Also, there is a potential for inconsistent findings in the two proceedings. Inconsistent findings by two different adjudicative bodies may occur because the cases are presented differently or because different statutes or rules may apply. However, it is generally preferable for one proceeding to be completed before the other starts so that the parties and the Tribunal can properly evaluate whether the other proceeding has appropriately dealt with some or all of the human rights issues

[9] I am satisfied that further consideration of the Application should be deferred until the appeal process currently at the WISAT has been concluded. The Tribunal’s Rule 14 sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.

[10] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 4^th day of February, 2011.

“Signed By”

Brian Cook

Vice-chair