HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Deane Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: September 22, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 1516 Indexed as: Deane v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), which alleges discrimination on the ground of disability in relation to the social areas of goods, services and facilities and employment.
2The Application concerns the decision-making of the respondent in relation to an alleged workplace injury on June 13, 2008. The applicant alleges that in finding that it was not able to establish proof of the accident (resulting in a denial of the applicant's claim for benefits), the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his disability.
3By letter dated August 27, 2009, the Tribunal advised the applicant that the Application may be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as the term "services" has been interpreted by the Tribunal to not include the outcome or decision-making arising from adjudication by other statutory bodies, including the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board ("WSIB"). The applicant was directed to two decisions of the Tribunal to that effect. The applicant was asked to make submissions on the issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear his Application. Those submissions have now been received.
4In his submissions, the applicant states that he wishes the Application to proceed in relation to the social areas of employment as well as services. He also refers to another Tribunal file, 2009-02869-I, in which he is the applicant against his former employer, Condor Signal & Communications Inc., and suggests that the two files could be heard together. Other than an offer for the Registrar to review evidence related to this file, he made no other submissions pertaining to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
5The Tribunal has consistently held that the outcomes and decision-making of tribunals and courts are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as they are not encompassed by the term "services" found in section 1 of the Code: see Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 99, and Christianson v. Ontario (IPC), 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424.
6The applicant attached to his Application a letter dated November 25, 2008, from the respondent to the applicant which denied his claim for benefits on the basis that the respondent could not establish proof of accident on June 13, 2008. The Application appears to be based exclusively on the respondent's decision-making and the outcome of that decision-making in relation to the applicant's WSIB claim.
7In his Application, after referring to this letter, the applicant indicates that "This is an issue for WSIAT". He is correct that the proper way of challenging the respondent's decision of November 25, 2008 is to appeal that decision to an Appeals Resolution Officer of the WSIB, and if that decision is adverse, to further appeal the matter to WSIAT.
8I have reviewed the applicant's other file relating to his former employer, file 2009-02869-I. That Application relates to the alleged discriminatory termination of the applicant's employment by his former employer. While there is some reference in the pleadings in that other file to the WSIB and the decisions that it has rendered to date in relation to the applicant's claim for benefits, it is clear that the alleged discrimination is in relation to a separate respondent and gives rise to different issues compared to those that arise in this file. I find that this other file does not support the applicant's position in relation to the Tribunal's jurisdiction in this matter.
9It is clear that the respondent was never the applicant's employer and therefore the social area of employment is not applicable.
10For these reasons, this Application is dismissed. The Application, the Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant dated August 27, 2009, the applicant's submissions and this Interim Decision shall be served on the respondent.
Dated at Toronto, this 22^nd^ day of September, 2009.
"Signed by"
______________________________
Alan Whyte Vice-chair