A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited, 2016 HRTO 40

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

A.B.

Applicant

-and-

Joe Singer Shoes Limited, Buy-A-Hammer Investments Inc.

And Paul Singer

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 12, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 40

Indexed as: A.B. v. Joe Singer Shoes Limited

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

A.B., Applicant

Rebeka Lauks, Counsel

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to deal with the applicant’s request to reactivate her deferred Application.

2The Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sex including sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, family status, marital status age and reprisal. The application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19, as amended on January 19, 2009.

3On May 11, 2010 the Tribunal issued Interim Decision 2010 HRTO 1053, which ordered the deferral of the Application pending the conclusion of the proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) and any related appeals to the Workplace and Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “WSIAT).

4On December 17, 2015 the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”), which requested that the Tribunal reactivate her deferred Application.

5The respondents did not file a Response to the RFOP although the Respondents objected to the deferral in the first instance.

6I am of the view that the Application should be reactivated. The applicant has indicated that WSIAT has advised in November 2015 that the hearing of her claims will not take place for another year,that is November 2016, more than three and a half years after the decision that is being appealed. An appeal decision is not likely to be rendered until 2017.

7The Tribunal has recognized that it should reactivate a deferred Application if the proceeding before the WSIB and WSIAT has become unduly prolonged. See Yousefi v. Eugene Collision Ltd., 2013 HRTO 1180 and Ravlic v. VAC Developments Ltd. 2015 HRTO 1188. The reasoning is that the deferral is no longer the most, fair, just and expeditious way of processing the application. Those circumstances exist with respect to this Application.

8Accordingly, the applicant’s request, to which the respondents have not objected, to reactivate the deferred Application is granted.

order

9The Tribunal orders the reactivation of the Application.

10I am not seized of this matter.