Hastings v. ArcelorMittalDofasco Inc., 2012 HRTO 1716

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Hastings

Applicant

-and-

ArcelorMittalDofasco Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: September 11, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1716

Indexed as: Hastings v. ArcelorMittalDofasco Inc.

APPEARANCES

Michael Hastings, Applicant

Angela Mancini, Representative

ArcelorMittalDofasco Inc., Respondent

Bettina Burgess, Counsel

Introduction

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 with respect to employment because of disability.

2The applicant states that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant after he suffered a work related injury. The respondent denies the allegations and asserts that it made reasonable efforts to accommodate the application.

3The respondent also requests early dismissal of the Application because another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the matter, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code. The respondent submitted that the substance of the Application has been dealt with in proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”). The respondent submitted that the applicant, respondent and WSIB attempted to identify suitable work, i.e., work within the applicant’s restrictions caused by his injury, but were unable to identify any positions that were suitable and available. In these circumstances the WSIB sponsored the applicant for a Work Transition Plan to allow the applicant to obtain a job in the general labour market as a Purchasing and Inventory Clerk.

4The applicant filed a Reply, which, among other things, addressed the dismissal request. The applicant simply submitted that the respondent did not meet the standards established by the Tribunal with respect to an order to dismiss.

5Section 45.1 of the Code provides:

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.

6Section 43(2) of the Code provides that the Tribunal shall not finally dispose of an application within its jurisdiction without affording the parties a chance to make oral submissions.

7Within 14 days of the date of this Decision, the applicant will advise the Registrar and the respondent in writing whether he would like an opportunity to make oral submissions on the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code.

8If the applicant indicates that he wishes to make oral submissions, the Registrar will schedule an oral hearing by way of telephone conference to address the following issues:

Did the WSIB process appropriately deal with the substance of the Application?

9If the parties wish to rely on case law or other supporting material not already filed with the Tribunal, then they are directed to deliver this material to each other and to the Tribunal no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the conference call.

10If the applicant does not communicate with the Registrar in response to this Interim Decision or if he indicates that he does not wish to make oral submissions, the Tribunal may determine the issues based on the materials already filed by the parties.