Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Arvinder Bindra Applicant
-and-
Ontario Infrastructure Projects Corporation Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: April 6, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 663 Indexed as: Bindra v. Ontario Infrastructure Projects
1This Application was filed on November 2, 2010 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. The applicant alleges failure to accommodate and discriminatory dismissal by the respondent employer.
2The respondent filed a Response on December 20, 2010 denying the allegations of discrimination. In its Response, the respondent requests the Tribunal to dismiss the Application, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, because of an on-going civil proceeding with respect to the same allegations and remedies raised in the Application. The respondent identified the applicant’s insurer, Great West Life Assurance Company (“GWL”), as an affected party.
3The Tribunal sought clarification regarding the respondent’s Request to dismiss. On February 7, 2011, the respondent advised the Tribunal that the civil action was between the applicant and GWL and that it was not a party to the civil action. The respondent sought copies of the documents concerning the civil proceeding.
4On February 25, 2011, the applicant filed a Response to the respondent’s Request to dismiss. The applicant indicated that the civil claim was filed and settled as against GWL with respect to the issue of payment of long-term disability benefits. The applicant submits that the civil claim and the settlement with GWL are immaterial to the allegations of employment discrimination as against the respondent. The applicant provided copies of the Statement of Claim and redacted settlement documents.
5The respondent filed Reply submissions on March 11, 2011 indicating that the respondent was unaware of the fact that the applicant and GWL had settled the civil claim. Although the respondent made no submissions in this regard, the respondent asserted that the Application should be dismissed, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code, because the civil settlement between the applicant and GWL appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. The respondent further submitted that the applicant should be required to provide unredacted copies of the settlement documents.
6On March 14, 2011, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that the Tribunal order the applicant to provide unredacted copies of the settlement documents because figures noted in the settlement are attributed to the applicant’s income. The respondent submits that it requires disclosure of the details of the financial settlement in order to ensure that the applicant is not doubly compensated for the same heads of damages. The respondent submits that since the applicant is claiming relief from the respondent for the same period of time, the amount the applicant has received from GWL with respect to income loss for this period is relevant.
7The applicant did not file submissions in response to the respondent’s Request and the timeline for doing so has elapsed.
SECTION 34(11)
8Section 34(11) of the Code bars the Tribunal from proceeding with an application where a civil claim has been filed with a court requesting a remedy based on the alleged human rights violations.
9Although the GWL civil claim and Application arise from the applicant’s employment circumstances, the respondent employer was not a party to the civil proceeding. The Application raises allegations of disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, whereas the civil proceeding dealt with issues of GWL’s policies and practices of insurability. While the history of employment is the same, there is little or no overlap with respect to the legal issues of employment-related disability discrimination and the duty to accommodate. The respondent’s request for dismissal pursuant to section 34(11) is refused.
SECTION 45.1
10Section 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. [emphasis added]
11There is no information or evidence before the Tribunal that the subject-matter of the Application is the same or substantially the same as the GWL civil action and that settlement of that civil claim “appropriately dealt with” the substance of the current Application. While there appears to be some factual overlap, there is no basis to conclude that the insurance claim appropriately resolved the current Application, which is an employment discrimination case. The respondent’s request for early dismissal under section 4