Abu Amin v. ASP Incorporated, 2016 HRTO 773

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abu Amin

Applicant

-and-

ASP Incorporated

Choose an item.

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: June 7, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 773

Indexed as: Amin v. ASP Incorporated

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Abu Amin, Applicant

Self-represented

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”).

2In Amin v. ASP Incorporated, 2014 HRTO 1533, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending a decision of an Appeals Resolution Officer (“ARO”) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) regarding the applicant’s claim to the WSIB, or his decision not to pursue such an appeal. The Tribunal also stated that the applicant could request reactivation of the Application if he believed the WSIB process had become unduly delayed. The Tribunal directed that such a request must include the status of the WSIB process and the reasons why the applicant believes that there is undue delay.

3The Tribunal sent letters on July 14, 2015 and May 2, 2016 asking that the applicant update the Tribunal with respect to the status of the WSIB process. After the applicant’s reply to the July 14, 2015 letter, the Tribunal continued to defer the Application. After the May 2, 2016 letter, the applicant filed a Form 10 Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the Tribunal reactivate his Application. He states that although WSIB decided he has a permanent impairment of his right ankle, his WSIB appeal is on hold because he is required to see specialists such as a physiatrist, where he has been assessed by a doctor at the WSIB Foot and Ankle Speciality Clinic. As such, he submits the process is becoming unduly delayed.

4The respondent did not file a Form 11 Response to the Request for an Order During Proceedings.

analysis and decision

5The request to reactivate the Application is denied.

6The applicant has not established that the WSIB process has been unduly delayed. The applicant chose to pursue an appeal of the WSIB’s decision and this will take time. The Tribunal has said that the mere fact that a legal process may be lengthy is not sufficient reason for reactivating an application. See Groves v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2011 HRTO 1245; Caissie v. Reko Automation and Machine Tool, 2013 HRTO 332 and Groen v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2014 HRTO 1833 (“Groen”).

7An applicant seeking to reactivate an applicant because of “undue delay” must establish something more than the fact that the other proceeding is lengthy in the normal course, namely that the other proceeding has been delayed beyond the normal expectations or requirements of that process or proceeding (see, Groen at para. 10). As in Groen, the other proceeding in this matter is the appeal of a decision in the applicant’s WSIB claim. The applicant states only that he has to see a specialist, but he gives no indication of whether that will occasion a delay, or if so, how long that delay may be. He provides no evidence that the length of his appeal will exceed the normal requirements for that process. He also provides no evidence to support his statement that his WSIB appeal is “on hold”. In the circumstances, I cannot find that the WSIB matter has become unduly delayed.

8The applicant requests that if the Tribunal decides not to reactivate this Application, the Tribunal give him advice on withdrawing his WSIB appeal. The Tribunal cannot provide such advice.

order

9The applicant’s request to reactivate the Application is dismissed as premature.

10I am not seized.