Edwards v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1158

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Daniel Edwards Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: July 28, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1158 Indexed as: Edwards v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on April 2, 2009 alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of goods, services and facilities. In particular, the applicant alleges that the respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against him on the basis of his age and in its handling of his WSIB claim, dispensation of accidents benefits and pension, as well as its treatment towards him during the course of home modifications.

2In its Response, the respondent asserts that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over entitlement and quantum of benefits and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the WSIB matters which the applicant seeks to challenge. The respondent also filed a Request for Order During Proceeding, seeking to have the Application dismissed as being outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The respondent relies upon a number of Tribunal decisions for the proposition that the adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal are not “services” under the Code: see for example: Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, 2009 HRTO 99; and Christianson v. (Ontario)Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2009 HRTO 203, 2009 HRTO 203.

3Although provided with a copy of the respondent’s Response and Request and notification of timeline for filing his responding materials, the applicant did not file a Reply or response submissions.

4It is unclear whether the applicant’s allegations relate only to the WSIB’s exercise of statutory decision making responsibilities, which the Tribunal has found are not susceptible to review by the Tribunal (see Baird above) or whether the applicant’s allegations raise matters that constitute “services” within the meaning of the Code.

5In the circumstances, it is appropriate to determine the respondent’s Request for early dismissal and the issue of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing by teleconference in order to hear submissions from the parties on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant should be prepared to explain at the outset of the teleconference how the concerns set out in his Application raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide.

6If the applicant or respondent wish to rely on any supporting material for the purpose of the teleconference (including submissions, facts or case law not already provided in the materials before the Tribunal), they are directed to deliver this material to each other, and to the Tribunal, by no later than two weeks before the date scheduled for the teleconference.

7I am not seized of this matter.