Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Joseph Whitwell Applicant
-and-
U.S. Steel Canada Inc. – Hamilton Works Respondents
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: January 23, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 169 Indexed as: Whitwell v. U.S. Steel Canada
Written Submissions
Joseph Whitwell, Applicant ) Self-represented
U.S. Steel Canada Inc. – ) Hamilton Works, Dan Fisher, ) Patricia G. Murray, Dean Comand and James Kee, ) Counsel Respondents )
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment because of disability. The hearing of this matter is scheduled for February 6 and 7, 2012.
2The Application refers to events that took place between 2005 and 2009. In a previous Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 670, the Tribunal dismissed portions of the Application as untimely and removed the individual respondents. The remaining allegation relates to the respondent’s decision to terminate the applicant’s employment because it had no suitable work for the applicant, given his physical restrictions. The applicant received benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Schedule A (“WSIA”). The case manager from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) granted supplementary benefits under section 147(4)(14) of the WSIA on the strength of the respondent’s representation to the WSIB that there were no suitable assignments at the workplace to accommodate the applicant.
3On December 22, 2011, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding (the “Request”) to dismiss the Application pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because the case manager’s decision was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the issue of accommodation. The respondent relies on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, in support of the Request. On January 11, 2012, the applicant filed a Response to Request for Order resisting the Request.
4It appears that this Application raises significant issues regarding the interpretation of section 45.1 of the [Code](https://www.canlii.org/