HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Kazimierz Parda

Applicant

-and-

Tycos Tool & Die, a Division of Magna Exteriors & Interiors Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: September 25, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1836

Indexed as: Parda v. Tycos Tool & Die, a Division of Magna Exteriors

& Interiors Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Kazimierz Parda, Applicant ) Monika Tomaszewska,

) Representative

Tycos Tool & Die, a Division of Magna ) Robert B. Bayne, Counsel

Exteriors & Interiors Inc., Respondent )

INTRODUCTION

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to decide whether the applicant’s deferred Application should be reactivated.

BACKGROUND

2On September 21, 2010, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his place of origin, ethnic origin and disability

3On February 4, 2011, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 246, which ordered that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “WSIAT”).

4On May 22, 2012, the WSIAT issued a Decision, No. 2212/11, which upheld the applicant’s appeal in part, and remitted the matter to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) to determine the quantum and duration of benefits that the applicant was entitled to.

5On July 10, 2012, a WSIB Case Manager issued a decision on the quantum and duration of benefits that the applicant was entitled to, and notified the parties that they had a right to appeal the decision by December 28, 2012.

6On August 13, 2012, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, which requested that the Tribunal issue an order to reactivate his deferred Application.

7On August 27, 2012, the respondent filed a Response which opposed the applicant’s Request to reactivate his Application because the applicant’s claim under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 S.O. 1997 c. 16, Schedule A, as amended (the “WSIA”), is ongoing. The respondent stated that it intends to appeal the WSIB Case Manager’s July 10, 2012 decision, and that the Application should not be reactivated until the WSIB and WSIAT proceedings have been exhausted.

ANALYSIS

8Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provide:

14.3 Where a party wishes the Tribunal to proceed with an Application which has been deferred the request must be made in accordance with Rule 19.

14.4 Where an Application was deferred pending the outcome of another legal proceeding, a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be filed no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, must set out the date the other legal proceeding concluded and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding, if any.

9In my view, the applicant’s Request to reactivate his Application should be denied because the applicant’s claim under the WSIA is ongoing. The WSIAT remitted the applicant’s claim to the WSIB, which issued a decision, which the respondent intends to appeal. The matter may then be further appealed to the WSIAT. Furthermore, although the Tribunal’s Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 246, deferring the Application only referred to the conclusion of “the appeal process currently at the WSIAT” [emphasis added], I am satisfied that its reasons for deferring the Application remain valid.

ORDER

10The applicant’s Request to reactivate his deferred Application is dismissed without prejudice to his right to file a further Request after the conclusion of the proceeding under the WSIA.

11I am not seized of this matter.