Paradis v. Teppen Corporation, 2014 HRTO 1443

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Laurie Paradis

Applicant

-and-

Teppen Corporation

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: September 29, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1443
Indexed as: Paradis v. Teppen Corporation

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The applicant asserts that she was not properly accommodated in the workplace following a workplace injury, which ultimately led to her termination.

2This Interim Decision addresses two Requests for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") that have been filed by the parties.

3In the first, the applicant filed a RFOP requesting to amend the remedies that she is seeking in the event that her Application is successful. The respondent has not filed a Response to the RFOP and the time for doing so has elapsed.

4In the second, the respondent filed a RFOP requesting that the Tribunal defer the Application pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB"). In its request, the respondent submits that there is significant overlap between the issues in the Application and the WSIB proceedings as the issue before WSIB is what work the applicant could perform and what accommodations were provided by the respondent. The WSIB proceedings are at an advanced stage as the applicant has appealed to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal ("WSIAT").

5The applicant filed a Response to the RFOP opposing deferral. She submits that there is no duplication in issues between them.

The applicant's rfop to amend her application

6As the applicant's RFOP requesting to amend the remedies she is seeking is not opposed, and generally the Tribunal permits an applicant to amend the remedies that he or she is seeking, the Tribunal grants the applicant's request in this case. See Robert v. 289900 Ontario, 2009 HRTO 653 at para. 13.

the respondent's request to defer

7The 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). 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. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the same parties are involved in other legal proceedings, see Haskins v. TNS Canadian Facts, 2008 HRTO 287. Some of the factors that may be 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 type 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 Calabria v. DTZ Barnicke, 2008 HRTO 411, and Kaj v. Orsini Bros. Inns, 2009 HRTO 170.

8It is clear that the applicant has commenced proceedings in different venues based on the same allegations. There is significant overlap in the factual and legal issues raised in the proceedings before the WSIB/WSIAT and the Tribunal, which raises the potential for inconsistent findings if the matters proceed concurrently. The applicant filed a WSIAT appeal shortly after she filed her Application, and before the respondent received the Application. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

9Pursuant to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules, where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal's Rules and Forms can be found on its website.

10I am not seized with this matter.