Rice v. TPI Trebor Personnel Inc., 2016 HRTO 383

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Andrew Rice

Applicant

-and-

TPI Trebor Personnel Inc.

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: March 23, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 383 Indexed as: Rice v. TPI Trebor Personnel Inc.

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 respondent has not yet filed a Response (Form 2) to this Application but instead has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Request) seeking the deferral of the Application pending an appeal in a potentially related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and the production of the WSIB file prior to the respondent filing a Response. This Interim Decision deals with these two issues and makes directions with respect to the next steps in the Tribunal's process.

3The Request is denied at this stage.

4In his Application the applicant makes a number of allegations but the central issue and perhaps the only potential issue for determination under the Code is whether the respondent failed to offer the applicant work after August 26, 2014 because he had declined work on August 24, 2016. Implicit in this allegation would be an allegation that the applicant was not offered work because he was or was perceived to be a disability within the meaning of the Code.

5In the absence of a Response it is not clear whether or not the respondent sought medical information from the applicant at that time but according to the applicant his physician had cleared him to return to work. There is no indication of any restrictions on the applicant at that time. I note in this regard that the applicant had suffered a workplace injury in the past for which he sought benefits. He also experienced another injury which does not appear to have been work related but which affected his ability to work for a period of time. Neither episode appears to be at issue in this case based on the allegations made in the Application.

6In light of what appear to be the issues at this stage, it is not clear how the applicant's WSIA file is relevant to the issues in dispute in this case. In particular I am not satisfied that the applicant's medical condition was in issue on or after August 26, 2014 nor is there any indication that the respondent sought any further medical information at that time. The allegation is that the respondent simply failed to offer the applicant any work after he declined work on August 24, 2014. Similarly it is not clear why this Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIA proceeding. In coming to this conclusion, I have assumed without deciding that the WSIA issue relates to a claim for benefits for a period of time prior to the applicant seeking to return to work with a clean bill of health on August 26, 2014.

7My conclusions on these issues are based on the limited information before me and are not final determinations about the need for the production of medical records if arguably relevant or the deferral of the Application if it is appropriate to do so.

8For these reasons, the Request is denied at this stage. The Respondent is directed to deliver and file a Response to the Application within 14 days of receipt of this Interim Decision.

9I am not seized of this case.