HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Reza Mehrpooya
Applicant
-and-
Future Shop/Best Buy Canada Ltd.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Mehrpooya v. Future Shop/ Best Buy Canada
1The applicant filed this Application on January 20, 2011, under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of disability.
2The applicant alleges that he suffered a workplace injury in December 2009 and that his employer did not provide suitable accommodation upon his return to work. The applicant alleges that his employment was terminated in January 2010. The applicant alleges that he was dismissed because of his disability and need for accommodation and as reprisal for asserting his disability-related rights. The Application indicates that a Workplace Safety and Insurance (“WSIB”) claim regarding the subject matter of the Application is in progress.
3On February 22, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of another legal proceeding, a WSIB claim, dealing with the subject matter of the Application pursuant to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal invited the parties to file submissions no later than 30 days from the date of the letter as to why consideration of the Application should or should not be deferred.
4The respondent wrote the Tribunal on March 17, 2011 and indicated that it agrees the Application should be deferred because the facts, issues and remedies raised in the Application overlap with the WSIB matter.
5The applicant wrote to the Tribunal on March 23, 2011 and indicated that the Application should not be deferred because the WSIB claim is still in the initial stages of the WSIB process and the WSIB claim does not deal with the applicant’s Code-related rights.
DECISION
6The 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). 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.
7Some factors that have been identified as 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: see Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.
8Based on the information provided by the parties, the applicant’s WSIB claim was launched in March 2010. The WSIB claim deals with the allegation that the applicant’s employment was terminated contrary to the respondent’s re-employment obligations following return to work after a workplace injury. The WSIB issued a decision denying the applicant’s claim in April 2010 and the matter is now proceeding to before the WSIB Appeals Branch.
9It appears that the factual background of the Application is entirely the same as the WSIB matter. Further, it appears that the human rights allegations of discriminatory dismissal and reprisal are the same concerns raised in the WSIB claim. It also appears that there is some similarity in the remedies sought in the two proceedings. In my view there is an overlap between the issues that are raised in the two proceedings and findings of fact made in the WSIB process may well be relevant to this Application. While the damages sought in the two proceedings are also not identical, there is some overlap given that the applicant is seeking compensation for lost income in both proceedings. For these reasons the Application is deferred.
10The 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.
11I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of April 2011.
“Signed By”
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair