Paulo De Sena v. Real-Time Contracting Group Inc., 2016 HRTO 318

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paulo De Sena Applicant

-and-

Real-Time Contracting Group Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: March 10, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 318 Indexed as: De Sena v. Real Time Contracting Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Paulo De Sena, Applicant Kimberley Ann Smith, Representative

Real-Time Contracting Group Inc., Respondent Leah Simon, Counsel

Introduction

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”).

2The Application was filed on May 25, 2015. Around the same, time the applicant filed a complaint with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) alleging that the respondent had breached its re-employment obligation. This alleged breach of re-employment is also the basis for the allegations that the respondent violated the applicant’s Code rights on the basis of his disability.

3On July 24, 2015, a WSIB Case Manager issued a decision in relation to the applicant’s claims that his right to re-employment had been breached. The Case Manager concluded that the respondent is in breach of its re-employment obligations and ordered that the applicant was entitled to re-employment payments.

4The Respondent made a Request to Defer this Application pending the outcome of a proceeding at the WSIB. The Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2015-HRTO 1048 in which the request to defer was denied on the basis that the WSIB Case Manager’s investigation had concluded and a decision had been issued so there was no on-going proceeding.

5After Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1048 had been issued, the respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Interim Decision on the basis that the respondent has filed a Notice of Objection of the WSIB Case Manager’s July 24, 2015 decision.

6Having found the issues raised in this Application and the issues raised in the WSIB appeal appear to be almost identical, the Tribunal ordered that the Application be deferred in a further Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1280.

7The deferral was to be in effect until a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had issued a final decision in regards to the respondent’s appeal or until six months from the date of the Interim Decision 2015 HRTO 1280 had passed, whichever was sooner.

8In the interest of avoiding excessive delay, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to advise the Tribunal of the status of that appeal if the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had not issued a decision within six months.

9On March 3, 2016, the respondent advised the Tribunal that it had decided not to continue the appeal of the decision of the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

10Having reviewed the matter, I find that the WSIB proceeding is concluded and that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to reactivate the Application. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

11As the parties have agreed to try mediation to resolve the dispute between them, the Tribunal shall schedule mediation.

ORDER AND DIRECTION

12The Application is reactivated.

13The Registrar will schedule mediation.

14I am not seized of this matter.