Michael Kontopodis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 1036

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Kontopodis
Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Decision Date: May 24, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 1036
Indexed as: Kontopodis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Respondent

Gurjit Brar, Counsel

1This Application was filed on March 7, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the ground of disability.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) discriminated against him in various ways, including denial of his disability, failure to consider and accommodate his disability-needs in the Work Transition Services and the reduction of his loss of earnings benefits.

3In his Application, the applicant notes that a WSIB proceeding is underway and that he agrees to defer his Application pending the completion of the WSIB process.

4On April 5, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer. The Tribunal invited the parties to file written submissions with respect to the issue of deferral.

5On April 24, 2012, the respondent filed submissions confirming that the applicant has a WSIB appeal in progress seeking reconsideration of decisions with respect the reduction of his benefits and issues with respect to his Work Transition Services. The respondent submits that two proceedings are identical and, therefore, the Application should be deferred pending the resolution of the applicant’s appeal.

6The applicant did not file written submissions in response to the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Defer.

7The parties agree that deferral is appropriate in this case because there is an on-going WSIB appeal dealing with the same facts and allegations that are raised in this Application.

8I find that the matters that comprise the substance of the WSIB appeal are directly related to the applicant’s human rights allegations. Further, the applicant seeks overlapping remedies with respect to loss of earnings in both processes. Given the significant overlap in the subject matter of this Application and that of the outstanding WSIB appeal, I conclude that deferral is the most fair, efficient, and just way of proceeding with this Application.

9The Tribunal orders the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the WSIB process.

10Where a party wishes to proceed with an application which has been deferred, the party must make a Request for an Order During Proceedings in accordance with Rule 19 within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding (Rules 14.3 and 14.4).

11I am not seized of this matter.