Robert Tuck v. The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, 2013 HRTO 766

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Tuck

Applicant

-and-

The Governing Council of the Salvation Army

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: May 9, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 766 Indexed as: Tuck v. Governing Council of the Salvation Army

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Tuck, Applicant

Beth Walden, Counsel

The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, Respondent

Christine Leblanc, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the result of a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”).

2In his Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him in employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, he claimed that the respondent harassed him and failed to accommodate his disabilities. In the Application, the applicant made no mention of any other proceeding currently in progress that relates to the facts contained in the Application.

3In its Response, the respondent requested a deferral of the Application because of a claim filed before the WSIB. However, the respondent provided no details about this claim in its Response. The only reference to any WSIB claim appears at the top of two letters sent by the respondent in March 2013 – one to the applicant and one to his health care practitioner. Nevertheless, neither the letters nor the Response provides any particulars as to the substance of any WSIB claim or its status.

4When the Tribunal delivered a copy of the Response to the applicant, it directed him to include in his Reply written submissions on whether the Application should be deferred. The applicant did not make any submissions on the deferral issue in his reply.

5In the circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded that deferral of the Application is appropriate. As noted above, the Application raises the issues of whether the respondent met its duty to provide reasonable accommodation and whether it harassed the applicant. I have absolutely no particulars as to any pending WSIB claim filed by the applicant. Therefore, the respondent’s deferral request is denied.

6As the parties have agreed to mediation, the next step will be for the Registrar to schedule a mediation in this matter.