Caldeira v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 973

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Llewellyn Caldeira Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: July 6, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 973 Indexed as: Caldeira 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”), which alleges that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to employment and contracts because of his disability. The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”).

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that in July 2008 one of the respondent’s adjudicators decided to reduce his loss of earning benefits. He further alleges that he appealed the decision, but on March 26, 2009, the respondent’s Appeals Branch dismissed his appeal. He attached to his Application a letter from the Appeals Branch, which informed him that he had a further right of appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”). It is not clear from his Application whether he filed an appeal to WSIAT, but he filed his Application with the HRTO on April 9, 2009. His Application requests as a remedy that the HRTO restore his loss of earning benefits to their previous level.

3On May 13, 2009, the HRTO’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed the applicant that the Application appears to be outside of the HRTO’s jurisdiction because the allegations in the Application relate to whether another tribunal or agency has erred in its decision-making. The HRTO invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days to explain why the Application is within the HRTO’s jurisdiction. To date, the applicant has not filed written submissions.

4Although the Application lists the areas of alleged discrimination as “employment” and “contracts”, he does not allege that he was in an employment or contractual relationship with the respondent. Rather, the applicant’s allegations appear to be related to his entitlement to statutory benefits, which are administered by the respondent pursuant to its enabling legislation. It is therefore more appropriate to analyze the applicant’s allegations in the context of “services”: see Lindberg v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 463 at paras. 5-6.

5The HRTO has held that the adjudicative decisions of statutory tribunals and agencies are not a “service” pursuant to the Code: see, for example, Christianson v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 886, Christianson v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services), 2009 HRTO 752, Lindberg, supra, and Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99.

6Furthermore, the HRTO does not have the authority to hear appeals from the decisions of other statutory tribunals: see Christianson v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2009 HRTO 203 at para. 10.

7The Application at hand alleges that the adjudicative decisions of the respondent were wrong, and requests that the HRTO overturn those decisions and restore the applicant’s loss of earning benefits to their previous level. For the above reasons, the Application is not within the HRTO’s jurisdiction, and is therefore dismissed.