Michael Christianson v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 886

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Christianson

Applicant

-and-

Social Benefits Tribunal

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: June 18, 2009

Indexed as: 2009 HRTO 886

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”) on April 2, 2009. The applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability and association with a person identified by a Code-related ground. He also alleges reprisals or threat of reprisal. The essence of the allegations is that the respondent rendered a decision that was unfair, contrary to the law and unresponsive to the applicant’s arguments.

2On April 27, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”). On May 25, 2009, the applicant filed written submissions in response to the Notice.

3The purpose of this Decision is to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application.

ANALYSIS

4Section 1 of the Code provides:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is derived from the Code and limited to what is conferred upon it by that statute. In this case, because the applicant alleges discrimination in the provision of services, the Tribunal must determine whether the subject of the allegations (the decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal) constitutes a “service” within the meaning of the Code. If it does not, the allegations contained in the Application are beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the Application will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1.

6The remedy requested in the Application amounts to a request to review and reverse the decisions or orders of the Social Benefits Tribunal. In my view, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review or vary an order of another statutory tribunal.

7The Tribunal has held that the content, reasons and result contained in the decision of a statutory tribunal are not a “service” pursuant to the Code. (See Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 99, Christianson v. Ontario (IPC), 2009 HRTO 203 and Bulimaibau v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 413. For this reason, the decisions of the Social Benefits Tribunal are not subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

8The Application is dismissed.