Higginson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2010 HRTO 111

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Grant Higginson Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang Date: January 18, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 111 Indexed as: Higginson v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal

1This is an Application filed on October 16, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination on the ground of disability and appears to relate to the area of goods, services and facilities.

2In the narrative portion of the Application, the applicant states that his complaint of discrimination is against a Vice-chair of the respondent tribunal, who issued a decision on an appeal by the applicant under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A., as amended.

3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application, inviting the applicant to make written submissions explaining why he believes the Application is in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant has not made submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

4The basis of the Application is the applicant’s disagreement with the outcome of the adjudicative process before the respondent. The Tribunal has held on a number of occasions that “services” within the meaning of the Code does not include the outcome or decision resulting from adjudications by other statutory bodies, including this respondent. See for example Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99; Christianson v. Ontario (IPC), 2009 HRTO 203, reconsideration refused 2009 HRTO 424; Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) 2009 HRTO 1595.

5The Tribunal has also stated that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of their duties as adjudicators because of the doctrine of judicial immunity: see Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp. 2009 HRTO 2180.

6I am satisfied that the allegations against the respondent do not raise issues that the Tribunal can decide. The Application is accordingly dismissed.