Clunis v. Rimac Fabricators aka Rimac Metal Curving Specialists, 2013 HRTO 2083

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Magnus Clunis

Applicant

-and-

Rimac Fabricators aka Rimac Metal Curving Specialists

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: December 17, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2083

Indexed as: Clunis v. Rimac Fabricators aka Rimac Metal Curving Specialists

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Office of the Employer Adviser, Intervener ) David Borwick,

) Representative

1This Interim Decision addresses the request to intervene filed by the Office of the Employer Adviser.

2This Application is scheduled for a hearing on January 6-7, 2014.

3By Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 1448, dated August 23, 2013, the Tribunal advised the parties that this Application appears to raise significant issues regarding the interpretation of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”) in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The Tribunal advised that this Application also appears to raise a significant issue regarding whether the decisions of Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) Case Managers appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claims raised in the Application.

4The Tribunal advised that it would use the first hearing day scheduled for this Application (January 6, 2014) to hear oral submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the Application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 and/or the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack or abuse of process.

5The Tribunal directed that its Interim Decision be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the Office of the Worker Adviser, the Office of the Employer Adviser, and the Crown Law Office–Civil of the Ministry of the Attorney General, so they could file a request to intervene if they wished.

6On September 13, 2013, the Office of the Employer Adviser(“OEA”) filed a Request for an order During Proceedings in which it sought to intervene in this Application. The OEA is an Office of the Ontario government that provides representation, advice and education to employers on workplace safety insurance matters. The OEA submitted that it has recognized expertise in workplace safety and insurance matters. It sought to intervene in this Application to clarify whether WSIB case managers engage in “proceedings” within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code and the extent to which their decisions are conclusive on Code-related issues. The OEA sought to make submissions and call evidence if necessary.

7Neither the applicant nor the respondent has made submissions regarding the OEA’s request to intervene.

8In my view, the OEA has an interest and expertise on the legal issues that will be dealt with on January 6, 2014. Its request to intervene is granted. However, its intervention shall be limited to making legal submissions on the issues identified below.

order

9The OEA’s request to intervene is granted. The OEA’s intervention shall be limited to making legal submissions on the following issues: (1) whether WSIB Case Managers engage in “proceedings” within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Code and (2) if so, the principles the Tribunal must apply in deciding whether applications should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code and/or the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack or abuse of process where a WSIB Case Manager has issued a decision on issues related to the Application.

10The Tribunal’s Registrar shall deliver to the OEA a copy of the Application, the Response and the respondent’s Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the Application under s. 45. 1 of the Code.