HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Lianne Grant
Applicant
-and-
Longo Brothers Fruit Market Inc.
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson
Indexed as: Grant v. Longo Brothers Fruit Market Inc.
APPEARANCES
Lianne Grant, Applicant
Christine Lundy, Representative
Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc., Respondent
Paul Wearing, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on November 30, 2012 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.
2This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
BACKGROUND
3The applicant alleges that she hurt herself at work in late August, 2011. The applicant alleges that she provided medical information to the respondent but the respondent did not offer her appropriate accommodation and she never returned to work, despite her efforts that continued for over a year. The respondent asserts that it offered appropriate accommodation in an attempt to return the applicant to work, but the applicant ceased communicating with the respondent for long periods of time and did not provide medical evidence when requested.
4The WSIB denied the applicant’s claim because it could not determine if the applicant’s injury occurred at work. The applicant filed an appeal of this decision, which is pending. In its Response, the respondent requested that deferral of the Application in light of the ongoing proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (“WSIAT”).
5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an application, on such terms as it may determine, and on its own initiative (Rule 14.1). 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. However, the Tribunal has stated that deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings. It is a discretionary measure that the Tribunal exercises on the basis of the circumstances in each case. Absent good reason, applicants and respondents before the Tribunal are entitled to expect the Tribunal to take timely action to resolve complaints of discrimination brought before it.
6The respondent simply noted in the Response form that there is an ongoing proceeding before the WSIB involving the parties. The respondent did not indicate that the WSIB proceeding deals with the same issues or indicate that concurrent proceedings may result in inconsistent decisions. The applicant submitted that the applicant’s appeal of the WSIB decision deals only with the finding that the applicant’s injury was not compensable under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and does not address issues such as accommodation to the point of undue hardship. The applicant also submitted that the process before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal WSIAT is very slow and she anticipates that it will be several months before a hearing is scheduled.
7On the information available to the Tribunal, I find that it is not appropriate to defer the Application, at this time. There is no indication that the proceeding before the WSIAT will address the same issues as the Application. Accordingly, the potential for inconsistent rulings does not arise. The respondent may renew the request to defer should it appear that the WSIAT proceeding, as it progresses, will in fact address the issues arising in the Application.
8The request to defer is denied.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of April, 2013.
“Signed by”
Douglas Sanderson
Vice-chair