HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Hanqiao Wei
Applicant
-and-
Paramount Steel Limited
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Wei v. Paramount Steel Limited
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Hanqiao Wei, Applicant
Self-represented
Paramount Steel Limited, Respondent
Megan H. Burkett, Counsel
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 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. The Application alleges amongst other things that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant’s work-related injury and that his employment was terminated because he refused to work an eight-hour shift.
2The respondent filed a Response in which it denies that it has failed to accommodate the applicant. The respondent asserts that there is a Decision from the Appeals Resolution Officer at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) dated July 17, 2012 that found that there was no objective evidence to support the applicant’s position that he required a reduced work day. Based on the findings in this Decision the respondent advised that the applicant had to return to work based on an eight-hour work day, failing which his employment would end.
3The applicant filed an appeal of this Decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) on August 27, 2012. The respondent requests that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the applicant’s appeal.
4In the Reply the applicant takes the position that the matter should not be deferred because his appeal deals with the applicant’s loss of earnings benefits.
DECISION
5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.
6Applying these principles to this case, I agree with the respondent and find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding the WSIAT. I note that the applicant’s claim for WSIB benefits was refused, in part on the basis that there was insufficient evidence provided by the applicant to support the applicant’s request for modified hours. If this Application proceeds, one of the central issues before this Tribunal will be whether the applicant can establish that he required disability-related accommodation. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings concurrently consider the same facts and related issues as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions. In rendering this Decision, I am guided by the reasoning in the Tribunal’s Decision in Dhunsi v. J.T. Bakeries, 2010 HRTO 540.
7This Application will be deferred pending the conclusion of the proceedings before WSIAT.
8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of March, 2013.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair