John Mombourquette v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 908

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

John Mombourquette

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle

Date: May 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 908

Indexed as: Mombourquette v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1On February 2, 2010, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision in this matter, Mombourquette v. Innisfil Air Conditioning 2010 HRTO 227 (“Mombourquette”). At that time, the respondents to the Application were the applicant’s former employer, Innisfil Air Conditioning and also the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB). The Interim Decision directed that the Registrar would schedule an oral hearing by way of telephone conference call to hear submissions on the preliminary issues raised by the respondents. Specifically, the parties were directed to address:

a. Did the WSIB provide a service for the purposes of section 1 of the Code?

b. Did another proceeding appropriately deal with the substance of the Application for the purposes of section 45.1 of the Code?

2On April 7, 2010, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of another Tribunal Application which was scheduled to address the question of whether the WSIB provided a service within the meaning of the Code.

3That proceeding has now concluded with a final decision, Frankson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board 2011 HRTO 2107 (“Frankson”).

4The applicant has now filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) asking that the Tribunal reactivate his Application.

5The respondent has not filed a response to the applicant’s request to reactivate.

6This matter was deferred pending the conclusion of the matter which resulted in the final decision in Frankson. There is no basis to continue deferring this Application. The Tribunal will reactivate the Application.

7In the circumstances, the remaining respondent is asked to advise the Tribunal and the applicant if it wishes to address the above preliminary issues that were previously identified in this matter, or any other preliminary issues. The respondent may wish to have regard to recent Tribunal decisions such as Frankson and Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board 2012 HRTO 115.

ORDER

8The Tribunal makes the following orders:

a) The Application is reactivated.

b) The respondent is directed to identify what preliminary issues, if any, it requests to Tribunal consider in this Application and to provide submissions regarding any such issues within 21 days of this Interim Decision.

c) Should the respondent identify preliminary issues and provide submissions in respect of those issues, the applicant is directed to provide his response and submissions within 14 days of the respondent’s submissions.

d) Upon receipt of submissions from the parties, or after the time for making submissions has elapsed, the Tribunal may determine any preliminary issues identified or issue further directions.

9I am not seized of this matter.