minicounsel

Pedersen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1375 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

September 1, 2009

Pedersen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 1375

Case Summary

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy on 'non-work related conditions', which had initially resulted in a denial of her benefits when she stopped working due to pregnancy. The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the essence of the complaint was a challenge to an adjudicative decision, and purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Melonie Pedersen

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: September 1, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1375

Indexed as: Pedersen v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Melonie Pedersen, Applicant ) ) Cathy Braker, Counsel

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, ) Respondent ) Gurjit Brar, Counsel

[1] This is an Application filed March 6, 2009 under section 53(5) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

[2] A Case Resolution Conference is scheduled for December 1, 2009. The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on the Application on the basis that the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This Decision is based on the written submissions of the parties.

[3] The applicant was in receipt of benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (the "WSIA") for a period of time in May 2006. She subsequently returned to work. In January 2007 when the applicant became pregnant, her physician recommended she stop working because she was unable to take the pain medication which would enable her keep working. She applied for reinstatement of benefits under the WSIA and was initially denied benefits, but, after filing appeals, was ultimately successful. The applicant was paid benefits from January 2007 until August 2007 when she commenced maternity leave.

[5] In my view, if the applicant wishes to challenge a policy that is allegedly discriminatory, she can do so directly within the WSIB system of adjudication.

[6] There are elements of a statutory tribunal's process that are not encompassed by the Code's meaning of "service" and the purely adjudicative function is one of them: Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, [2009 HRTO 99](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/99) at para. [13](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/99) and Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner) [2009 HRTO 203](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2009/203).

[7] I find that the essence of the applicant's complaint is a challenge to the initial adjudicative decision of the WSIB (since successfully appealed) to terminate her benefits.

[8] The Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 1^st^ day of September, 2009.

"Signed by"

_________________________________________

Kaye Joachim

Alternate Chair