Charlotte Veras v. Baywood Paper Ltd., 2011 HRTO 543

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Charlotte Veras

Applicant

-and-

Baywood Paper Ltd.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: March 17, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 543

Indexed as: Veras v. Baywood Paper

1This Application, which was filed under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in employment on disability as well as reprisal. The Application alleges that the respondent harassed her with a view to making her quit after the applicant was injured at work, filed a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) claim and was placed in a modified position. The Application alleges that, when the applicant refused to quit, the respondent made unjustified accusations about her conduct and terminated her employment.

2This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s Request that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant’s WSIB claim.

3The respondent’s Request is contained in its Response to the Application. The respondent states that a deferral is warranted because the facts of the case are part of the applicant’s claim before the WSIB. The respondent states that the WSIB denied the applicant’s claims for workers compensation benefits and that the applicant has objected to this decision. The respondent provided a copy of an October 8, 2010 letter from the WSIB Appeals Branch to the respondent stating that the applicant’s objection to the WSIB decision will be assigned to an Appeals Resolution Officer to consider.

4In her Reply the applicant objects to the request to defer by stating that “they are two different issues”.

DECISION

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application on such terms as it may determine and on its own initiative. See Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. In considering whether to defer an application the Tribunal will look at 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 to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. However, deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

6In my view, consideration of the Application should be deferred, at least until such time as the objections that the applicant has currently filed have been dealt with by the WSIB Appeals Branch. Deferral, in this case, will ensure that there are not two legal proceedings going on at the same time involving some of the same issues.

7It appears that the legal issue at the WSIB is whether the applicant suffered a work-related injury and if she is entitled to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A. The WSIB proceeding will likely determine the nature and degree of the applicant’s disability and her entitlement to compensation for loss of earnings. The issue at this Tribunal is whether the respondents infringed the applicant’s Code-protected rights in relation to her claimed disability. It will likely have to consider the nature of the applicant’s claimed disability. In my view there is an overlap between the issues that would be raised in the two proceedings and findings of fact made in the WSIB process may well be relevant to the Application. While the damages that may be sought in the two proceedings are also not identical, there may be an overlap if the applicant will be seeking compensation for lost income in both proceedings. For these reasons the Application is deferred.

8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which set out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application pending the conclusion of another proceeding.

9I am not seized of this matter.