Pillon v. Turtle Island Recycling Corp., 2013 HRTO 334

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Christopher Pillon Applicant

-and-

Turtle Island Recycling Corp., and Tim Latam Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: February 15, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 334 Indexed as: Pillon v. Turtle Island Recycling Corp.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Christopher Pillon, Applicant ) Self-represented Turtle Island Recycling Corp. and ) Mark A. Stone, Counsel Tim Latam, Respondents )

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on August 27, 2011. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment on the basis of disability and reprisal. The applicant alleges that the respondent employer placed him on regular duties despite the fact that his doctor indicated he should be on modified duties and that his employment was unfairly terminated.

2The Application was deferred by way of Interim Decision 2012 HRTO 286, pending the conclusion of proceedings before Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB").

3On December 20, 2012, the applicant filed a request to reactivate his Application. The applicant provided a copy of a decision letter from the WSIB dated August 9, 2012 indicating that the WSIB eligibility adjudicator had upheld the original decision denying benefits entitlement to the applicant.

4The respondents did not file submissions in response to the applicant's request to reactivate.

5By way of Case Assessment Direction dated February 4, 2013, the Tribunal required the applicant to provide an explanation for the delay in filing his reactivation request; confirmation of the status of his WSIB claim; and whether or not he has sought to appeal the WSIB decision. The Tribunal provided the respondents with an opportunity to file response submissions.

6The Tribunal has received the parties' submissions. The applicant indicates that he was unaware of the 60-day timeline to seek reactivation and that he has exhausted his appeals before the WSIB. The respondents submit that the applicant's explanations for the late reactivate request do not justify the delay. The respondents request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as the WSIB has issued a final decision not in the applicant's favour, which indicates that the applicant has been unable to establish any valid WSIB claim.

7Some factors that the Tribunal has considered in assessing delay with respect to reactivation requests include the reason for the delay, the length of the delay, the potential prejudice to the respondents, and the Tribunal's mandate to provide an accessible process and to ensure the fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the matter: Davila v. McKesson Canada, 2012 HRTO 2156.

8Pursuant to Rule 1.7, the Tribunal has the discretion to lengthen time limits provided for in the Rules.

9I am prepared to grant an extension of time for the filing of the request to reactivate. The respondents did not assert any prejudice flowing from the delay or impacting their ability to respond to the Application.

10It appears that the WSIB process has concluded and that there are no outstanding appeals. As such, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to reactivate the Application.

11Accordingly, the Application is reactivated.

12I am not seized.