Caissie v. Reko Automation and Machine Tool, 2013 HRTO 332

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dennis Caissie

Applicant

-and-

Reko Automation and Machine Tool and Joseph Sirianni

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: February 26, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 332

Indexed as: Caissie v. Reko Automation and Machine Tool

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dennis Caissie, Applicant

Christine Lundy, Representative

Reko Automation and Machine Tool and Joseph Sirianni, Respondents

Jean Leslie Marentette, Counsel

Introduction

1The Application was filed on November 14, 2011, and alleges discrimination in employment because of disability. The Application indicated that there is an ongoing claim for benefits at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”). After receiving submissions on whether the Application should be deferred because of the ongoing claim for benefits at the WSIB, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision (2012 HRTO 752) deferring the Application.

2This Interim Decision considers whether to reactivate the Application pursuant to a recent request by the applicant to do so.

ANALYSIS

3Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules outlines the procedure by which a party may seek to bring the Application back on once the conditions set out in the deferral decision have been satisfied. Rule 14.4 states that:

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.

4The Interim Decision that deferred the Application held:

In my view, in this case, the factors that favour deferral outweigh those that do not favour deferral. I therefore find that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to defer further consideration of the Application until the proceedings at the WSIB have concluded. When those proceedings have concluded or if the applicant feels that it is clear that the proceeding at the WSIB are not in fact going to address the issues raised in the Application, he may apply to the Tribunal to have the Application reactivated. The process for doing this is set out in Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

5Based on the applicant’s submissions, it is clear that the WSIB matter has not concluded. The reason for the Applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is because the WSIB process has not made any progress in the past year and the delay is prejudicial to the applicant because “memories are fading”. In addition, the applicant refers back to his arguments in the submissions provided to the Tribunal before it decided to defer the Application, but those arguments were weighed by the Tribunal in its Interim Decision to defer the Application.

6The respondents oppose the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application, and take the position that the applicant’s reasons for reactivation do not justify that the deferral be removed. They argue that the delay in the WSIB process is because the applicant failed to take steps to move it along, and the applicant therefore cannot rely on his own delay as a reason to reactivate the Application. They also object to the applicant’s attempt to reargue the issues already adjudicated by the Tribunal in initially deciding to defer.

7I agree with the respondents that the request to reactivate does not allow the applicant an opportunity to argue why the Application should not have been deferred in the first place. A request to proceed with a deferred application can only be granted when the other process that deals with overlapping facts and issues has been completed. Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. (See Chandiwala v. Weston Bakeries Ltd., 2012 HRTO 514 and Leduc v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2012 HRTO 1987).

8In this case, the lengthy processing of the WSIB matter cannot alone justify a reactivation of the Application. It appears that facts and issues in the Application are still to be determined in the proceeding at the WSIB. To allow this Application to proceed in these circumstances would thwart the Tribunal’s previous order and would result in concurrent legal proceedings. Given that the WSIB process has not been completed, and continues to deal with facts and issues raised in the Application, I deny the applicant’s request to reactivate the Application.

9I am not seized.