Keith v. GNI Management Group Inc., 2015 HRTO 1619

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Douglas Keith

Applicant

-and-

GNI Management Group Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: November 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1619

Indexed as: Keith v. GNI Management Group Inc.

APPEARANCES

Douglas Keith, Applicant

Self-represented

GNI Management Group Inc., Respondent

Terri Schmedt, Representative

1The parties attended a preliminary hearing where the respondent requested that the Application continue to be deferred pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding. I granted the respondent’s request with written reasons to follow. The following are my reasons.

2On September 12, 2012, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2012 HRTO 1726, which ordered that the Application be deferred pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) and any related appeals to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “WSIAT”).

3On August 21, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) to reactivate his deferred Application on the basis of an excessive delay in processing his case in the workplace and safety and insurance system. The respondent did not file a Response to the RFOP.

4On December 23, 2014, the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2014 HRTO 1824, which ordered that the Application be deferred until a decision is reached by the Appeals Resolution Officer (the “ARO”) of the WSIB.

5On March 18, 2015, the applicant filed an RFOP to reactivate his Application on the basis that the Decision of the ARO of the WSIB was issued on January 19, 2015. The respondent did not file a Response to the RFOP.

6On April 23, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction, which noted that the issues that were before the ARO of the WSIB are similar to the issues raised in the Application before this Tribunal, and directed the parties to attend a hearing to determine, among other things, whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

7On June 23, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Hearing to the parties, which notified them that the hearing was scheduled for October 16, 2015.

8The preliminary hearing took place as scheduled on October 16, 2015. At the outset of the hearing, the respondent requested that the Application continue to be deferred because both parties have appealed the Decision of the ARO of the WSIB to the WSIAT. The applicant agreed that there is an ongoing appeal before the WSIAT, but opposed the deferral of his Application because, in his view, the processing of his case in the workplace and safety and insurance system is taking long. There was no dispute between the parties that the issues before the WSIAT are similar to the issues before this Tribunal

9In view of the fact that there is an ongoing appeal before the WSIAT, it would be premature to decide whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code on the basis that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. Furthermore, given that the issues before the WSIAT are similar to the issues before this Tribunal, the Application should continue to be deferred.

10The Tribunal makes the following order and direction:

1) The Application will continue to be deferred pending the conclusion of the appeal before the WSIAT.

2) Where a party wishes to proceed with an Application which has been deferred, the party must file with the Tribunal and deliver to the other party an RFOP no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding, and include a copy of the decision or order in the other proceeding (see Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure).

11I am not seized of this matter.