Balram Takhi v. Traxle Manufacturing Limited, 2015 HRTO 641

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Balram Takhi

Applicant

-and-

Traxle Manufacturing Limited

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: May 15, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 641

Indexed as: Takhi v. Traxle Manufacturing Limited

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”). In particular, the applicant alleges that following a work-related injury in June 2014, he was harassed during his employment and denied accommodations he asked for and that his employment was then terminated by the respondent in September 2014.

2The respondent denies that it harassed or discriminated against the applicant. The respondent asserts that the applicant’s employment was terminated because of chronic attendance issues.

3In its Response to the Application, the respondent asks that the Application be dismissed on the grounds that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application. Section 45.1 of the Code provides:

45.1 The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

4This Interim Decision deals with the respondent’s request for dismissal under section 45.1.

Analysis and Conclusions

5Having reviewed the documents filed by the parties, I find that the Application should not be dismissed under section 45.1 because, in my view, the various decisions of the WSIB that have been provided have not dealt with the substance of the Application.

6In a decision dated July 11, 2014, a WSIB Claims Manager determined that the respondent had provided suitable work and that the applicant's absence from work from June 11 to 24, 2014, was not necessary as a result of the work-related injury. The decision indicated that the applicant would fully recover from the injury by August 12, 2014.

7A decision dated August 5, 2014 from the Claims Manager found that the applicant was not entitled to further physiotherapy treatments as he had not attended scheduled appointments.

8A letter dated October 3, 2014 from the Claims Manager indicates that the applicant’s claim would be referred to the WSIB Appeals Branch. The letter says that the Claims Manager had received information about the termination of the applicant’s employment, but makes no finding about the termination.

9In my view, it is clear that the decisions of the WSIB that have been provided in this case by the parties have not dealt with the substance of the Application and that section 45.1 does not apply at this time.

10The parties have agreed to try mediation so the Tribunal Registrar will proceed to schedule a mediation session at the Tribunal.