Alan Hill v. Toyota Boshoku, 2013 HRTO 618

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Alan Hill Applicant

-and-

Toyota Boshoku Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: April 15, 2013
Citation: 2013 HRTO 618
Indexed as: Hill v. Toyota Boshoku

Background

1This Interim Decision deals with whether consideration of this Application should be deferred until the applicant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits is resolved.

2In 2012 the applicant was employed by the respondent on a probationary basis, working on its assembly line. He alleges that he injured his back at work and was given lighter work on the day of his injury. Because he continued to have pain, he needed to take three days off work. He alleges that a few days after he returned to work he was told that his work was too slow and his employment was then terminated. He maintains that his disability was not accommodated by the respondent, and that its only response to learning about his injury was to end his employment.

3The applicant then filed this Application 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. In completing his Application the applicant indicated that he has an outstanding claim with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) for benefits arising out of his workplace injury.

4The Tribunal sent the parties a Notice of Intent to Defer on February 22, 2013 and invited submissions from them on whether consideration of the Application should be deferred until the WSIB proceedings are complete. Neither party has provided submissions on this issue and the time for doing so has now passed.

Analysis

5Section 45 of the Code provides that the Tribunal may defer an Application in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. Rule 14.1 enables the Tribunal to defer consideration of an Application, on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party. Deferral of an Application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently. This avoids the risk of inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

6Some factors that have been identified as relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an Application before the Tribunal are: the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the types of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them. See Baghdasserians v. 674469 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 404.

7The facts and issues in the WSIB proceeding are similar to the ones in this Application. Both proceedings arise out of the same alleged incidents: the applicant’s injury at work and how the respondent is claimed to have handled it. The applicant’s initial claim for entitlement to WSIB benefits was denied in November of 2012 and he appealed that decision in January of 2013. It appears that the appeal is still pending.

8As the WSIB proceedings stem from the same facts that form the substance of this Application, there is significant potential for a factual overlap between the two proceedings. This raises the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact if the Application runs concurrently with the WSIB proceeding. In addition, while the WSIB proceedings are at an early stage, they have advanced beyond an initial decision to an appeal level, and are relatively more advanced than the proceedings before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of dealing with the Application at this time.

Order

9This Application is deferred until the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

10The 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 before the Tribunal after the WSIB proceedings have concluded.