Hastings v. ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc., 2013 HRTO 337

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Michael Hastings

Applicant

-and-

ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: February 27, 2012 Citation: 2013 HRTO 337 Indexed as: Hastings v. ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc.

APPEARANCES

Michael Hastings, Applicant Angela Mancini, Representative

ArcelorMittal Dofasco Inc., Respondent(s) Bettina Burgess, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2Pursuant to an Interim Decision in this matter, 2012 HRTO 1716, the Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing by telephone conference to determine whether the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB") process in which the applicant is engaged appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application, pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code. The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for March 7, 2013.

3On February 19, 2013, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings ("the Request") seeking to "convert" the hearing to determine whether the Tribunal should defer the Application, rather than address section 45.1 as currently planned. The respondent conceded that it cannot meet the test for dismissal under section 45.1 at this time because the applicant has pending appeals with the WSIB and therefore the WSIB proceeding has not appropriately dealt with the subject matter of the Application. The respondent submitted that the issue of deferral could be dealt with at the hearing scheduled on March 7, 2012 or by written submissions.

4The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order on February 21, 2013 ("the Response"). The applicant submitted that it supported the respondent's request to deal with the issue of deferral instead of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application pursuant to section 45.1. The applicant submitted that the parties should deal with the issue of deferral by oral submissions during the hearing scheduled on March 7, 2012 in order to avoid delay.

DECISION

5The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 because such a determination could obviously finally dispose of the matter and section 43(2) of the Code requires the Tribunal to afford the parties an opportunity to make oral submission before finally disposing of an application. A decision regarding whether deferral is appropriate shall not finally dispose of the Application and I am satisfied that the issue of deferral can be dealt with efficiently by oral submissions.

ORDER

6The hearing scheduled on March 7, 2012 is cancelled.

7Within 14 days of the date of this Interim Decision the respondent shall file written submission regarding whether the Tribunal should defer this Application. Within 14 days of receiving the respondent's submissions, the applicant shall file written submission regarding whether the Tribunal should defer this Application. Within 7 days of receiving the applicant's submissions, the respondent may file reply submissions.