Cochrane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2013 HRTO 484

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Timothy Cochrane

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and James Strachan

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: March 21, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 484

Indexed as: Cochrane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Timothy Cochrane, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1This is an Interim Decision in respect of 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 services, goods or facilities because of disability. The Application also claims reprisal by the respondents.

2The Application was deferred (2010 HRTO 913) pending the completion of the applicant’s appeal of the April 2008 decision of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”). On January 30, 2012, pursuant to information received from the applicant, the Tribunal issued a letter confirming that the application remained deferred pending completion of the other proceeding.

3On January 2013, the applicant filed a Request for an Order, attaching a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal that finds that he is a person with a disability for the purposes of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997. The applicant requests to amend his Application, and to re-activate from deferred status.

4The respondent has not responded to the applicant's Request, and the date for doing so has passed.

5Although the applicant has requested to amend his application, he has not suggested what he wishes to add to the Application. It appears that in filing the decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal and copying the decision to the respondent, he is submitting evidence that he should be considered a person with a disability. This may be relevant to his Application, but it does not appear to me to call for an amendment to the Application.

6The applicant has submitted no information concerning whether his appeal of the April 2008 decision of the WSIB has been concluded. Without information of this nature, the deferral decision of the Tribunal should not be disturbed.

7The applicant’s request is denied. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the appeal of the April 2008 decision of the WSIB has been concluded.

8I am not seized of this matter.