Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Steven McKinnon
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services
Respondent
CASE RESOLUTION CONFERENCE DECISION
Adjudicator: Mark Hart
Indexed as: McKinnon v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)
1This is an Application dated November 7, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on October 26, 2007.
2This Application relates to the applicant's efforts to obtain income support under the Ontario Disability Support Act. In order to qualify for income support under this legislation, a person must be found to be a person with a "disability" as that term is defined in the Act. The applicant was denied income support on the basis that the Disability Adjudication Unit found that he did not meet the definition of "disability". The applicant appealed to the Social Benefits Tribunal. Ultimately, the Social Benefits Tribunal heard the applicant's appeal on October 25, 2007 and held that the applicant did not have a "disability" within the meaning of the Act by decision dated November 14, 2007.
3This Tribunal's jurisprudence is clear that it does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body. That jurisdiction belongs to the Divisional Court. As stated in Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, at para. 12:
The application of the Code and the powers of the Tribunal are specifically enumerated in the Code. Pursuant to s. 1, every person has the right to equal treatment "with respect to services, goods and facilities". While a statutory decision-making process is a "service" for the purposes of the Code, there are elements of that process that are not encompassed by the Code's meaning of "service", such as the decision itself. The content, reasons and result contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker cannot be understood to be part of the "service" a statutory Tribunal is providing to the public. The decision is, therefore, not subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
4More recently, in Christianson v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 886, the Tribunal held that an application is beyond its jurisdiction where the remedy requested amounts to a request to review and reverse the decisions or orders of the Social Benefits Tribunal.
5By Case Assessment Direction dated June 30, 2009, the applicant was directed to provide submissions as to why his application should not be dismissed as beyond this Tribunal's jurisdiction in accordance with the cases cited above. The respondent was not required to file submissions unless specifically requested to do so by the Tribunal.
6The applicant made submissions by letter dated July 7, 2009. The applicant submits that no agency is above the Code, otherwise there is no purpose in having human rights legislation. The applicant expresses his belief that he has been discriminated against by not being allowed access to financial assistance when he believes that he met the criteria of having a disability when he does have a permanent learning disability. The applicant requests that the Tribunal consider the ramifications it would have on him if his Application was dismissed, and requests that the Tribunal not dismiss his Application.
7The applicant is quite correct in observing that no agency is above the Code and that decisions made by agencies under their constituent legislation need to conform to the Code. However, that does not mean that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider a claim of the nature being advanced by the applicant. What the applicant is requesting is that this Tribunal sit in review of an adjudicative decision made by another administrative tribunal. That is the role of the Divisional Court, and this Tribunal simply does not have jurisdiction to engage in such an exercise. Whether or not the applicant met the criteria of having a "disability" as that term is defined in the Ontario Disability Support Act is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Social Benefits Tribunal under its constituent legislation, and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review that adjudicative decision.
8As a result, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of July, 2009.
"Signed by"
Mark Hart
Vice-chair