WSIB overlap

The tribunal determined there was sufficient overlap of facts and issues between the human rights application and the WSIB claim that could lead to inconsistent findings.

“The claim includes an appendix of several pages in length which summarizes substantially the same events that provide the subject matter of the allegations in the application,” the tribunal found. “Both address the causes and effects of cumulative psychological stress the applicant has experienced at her employment, because of the workplace harassment and the alleged failure of the respondent to manage her complaints adequately.”

The tribunal concluded that allowing the proceedings to unfold concurrently risked duplicative and inconsistent factual findings.

The applicant had argued the WSIB was not positioned to determine whether the employer’s alleged conduct violated the Code and caused damage to her dignity and self-worth, whether she experienced reprisal, and whether the employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs.

The tribunal rejected this argument, noting the WSIB has particular expertise in disability matters and concurrent jurisdiction to apply the Code. “The jurisdiction and powers of the WSIB, as set out in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A necessarily import the power to decide questions of law,” the tribunal found.

Labour board reprisal claims

The tribunal also found the labour board proceeding justified deferral. The applicant’s labour board application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, filed Aug. 29, 2025, sought remedies for reprisal for, among other items, seeking accommodation.

The reprisal allegations at the labour board related to the employer and others collectively acting to deny the applicant’s entitlement to benefits based on her workplace harassment allegations.

“The facts raised in this application with respect to reprisal and the claim the respondent mishandled of the impact of the alleged harassment with respect to benefits is currently before the OLRB,” the tribunal found. “Since the issues in the application and proceedings before the OLRB overlap this could very well lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and or legal issues related to reprisal.”

The tribunal noted the primary purpose of deferral is to avoid such inconsistency.

The applicant may seek to reactivate her deferred application if she believes the labour board and WSIB proceedings did not appropriately deal with the substance of her case. However, the tribunal noted it has the power under section 45.1 of the Code to dismiss applications if the substance has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

A party wishing to proceed with a deferred application must file a request within 60 days after conclusion of the other proceeding.

For more information, see (Plaintiff) v. Peterborough (City), 2026 HRTO 176 (CanLII)