Guydos v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2012 HRTO 529

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Deborah Guydos Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: March 14, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 529 Indexed As: Guydos v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

Written submissions

Deborah Guydos, Applicant ) Self-Represented Workplace Safety and Appeals ) Daniel S. Revington, Counsel Tribunal, Respondent )

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), raises allegations that the respondent, the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”), discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability, sex, and family status in the provision of goods, services and facilities. The Application also alleges ongoing reprisal or threat of reprisal.

2In an earlier Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 479, the Tribunal dismissed the Application in part. The Tribunal held that most of the applicant’s allegations did not raise issues that are within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide). The Tribunal held that the Application could proceed on only one allegation (that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to provide funding for child care in order for her to attend the hearing), but it deferred consideration of the Application pending the determination of an application for reconsideration before the WSIAT.

3On November 1, 2011, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) seeking to reactivate the Application and requesting an extension of time in which to file documents. As the applicant’s Request regarding the extension of time was unclear, the Registrar wrote to her (and copied the respondent), directing her to provide information about what documents she intends to file and what timeline she is seeking to extend.

4The applicant filed submissions in response to the Registrar’s letter on December 18, 2011. Those submissions do no not address the issues of documents or timelines. They do, however, include some additional information in support of the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application. The applicant writes:

I filed a right to sue around August, asking that my reconsideration be carried over to that file. Instead W.S.I.A.T. closed my reconsideration and when I asked them to transfer it they refused and asked me to re-open a new reconsideration. That is why I believe that perhaps they closed the reconsideration which pertains to this file, even though a reconsideration is still pending.

5Based on the materials filed by the applicant, the status of the reconsideration request was unclear and I was unable to determine the Request. In a CAD issued on January 11, 2012, I directed the applicant to file submissions advising of the status of her reconsideration request before the WSIAT.

6The January 11, 2012 CAD indicated that the respondent had not filed a Response to the Request within the timeframe provided for in the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. In fact, as the respondent points out, the Registrar had directed that the respondent need not respond to the Request unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had provided no such direction.

7The applicant filed submissions in response to the January 11, 2012 CAD. She indicates that she continues to await the results of her request for reconsideration before the WSIAT.

DECISION

8In the circumstances, it is not necessary to obtain further submissions from the respondent.

9The applicant’s Request to Reactivate is denied. Consideration of the Application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT reconsideration process: see 2011 HRTO 479. The WSIAT reconsideration process has not yet concluded and I am not satisfied that there is any basis to reactivate the Application at this time.

10The Tribunal may address the applicant’s Request to extend timelines and file further documents at a later stage, if the Application is reactivated.

11I am not seized of this matter.