Sharon Kolenski v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, 2014 HRTO 831

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sharon Kolenski

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 5, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 831

Indexed as: Kolenski v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Sharon Kolenski, Applicant

Wade Poziomka, Counsel

1This is an Application filed on October 20, 2010 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 summary, the applicant alleges the respondent failed to accommodate her disability related needs when she attempted to return to work

2On May 9, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an order from the Tribunal deferring consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the applicant’s appeal regarding her Long Term Disability (“LTD”) benefits. The respondent has not filed a response to the request, but the applicant states that the respondent consents to the request. The applicant submitted that the parties continue to discuss settlement following mediation. The applicant submitted that it is unlikely that the parties shall be able to resolve the Application prior to the completion of the applicant’s appeal regarding LTD benefits, the result of which may narrow the remedial issues in dispute. The applicant submitted that the parties believe that deferral would be the most effective method of preserving the parties’ and the Tribunal’s resources.

3The request is denied. First, 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. There is no suggestion that the LTD appeal is such a concurrent proceeding. Second, the Tribunal does not defer its proceedings to facilitate negotiations between the parties. In that regard, I note that the applicant provided no indication of when the appeal regarding her LTD benefits is expected to be complete. I further note that the Tribunal has not yet scheduled the hearing of this Application. In these circumstances, there is no proper basis for deferring this Application.

4I am not seized.