Haskins v. On-Line Support, 2010 HRTO 1724

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

On-Line Support Inc., Assure and Telus Health Solutions,

Emergis Inc., GLW aka Great-West Life Scarborough Disability,

The Great-West Life Assurance Company

Respondents

interiM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: August 20, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1724

Indexed as: Haskins v. On-Line Support

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on February 16, 2010 in which she alleges discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, contracts, and goods, services and facilities.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent On-Line Support Inc. (“OSI”), her employer, failed to accommodate her return to work to part time hours after a medical leave of absence. The applicant alleges that the respondents GLW aka Great-West Life Scarborough Disability, and Great-West Life Assurance Company (collectively “GWL”) discriminated against her when it denied her claim of long term disability benefits.

3The applicant alleges that on the respondents GWL’s card, the respondent Emergis’ logo is displayed as is the respondent Assure’s logo, and as such these respondents are presented as being partners or service providers to GWL. The applicant requests proof from the respondents Emergis and Assure that they have conducted interactions with respect to her in their dealings with GWL.

4While the applicant identifies the respondent Telus as owning the respondent Emergis, it does not appear that she makes any allegations against it. The applicant submits that she formerly resided in Nova Scotia, but has relocated to Ontario.

5GWL filed a joint Response and submits that the applicant applied for but was denied long term disability benefits because she did not satisfy the definition of benefits as set out in the insurance policy. GWL denies discriminating against the applicant and submits that the dispute is one of interpretation of a contract of insurance that is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

6The respondents Assure, Telus Health Solutions and Emergis Inc. filed a joint Response in which they submit the Application should be dismissed against them. The respondent Emergis submits that it is in business of managing drug, dental and extended health claims on behalf of insurance companies throughout Canada, including the respondents GWL. The respondent Telus Health Solutions is a brand name or trade name of the respondent Emergis. The respondent Assure was a federal corporation based in Ontario and was amalgamated with BCE Emergis Inc., also a federal corporation, in January 2000.

7The respondent Emergis does not know of the relationship between GWL and OSI. Pursuant to an agreement between GWL and the respondent Emergis, GWL directs employees of OSI to submit claims to the respondent Assure’s system for processing so that the respondent Emergis can administer drug, dental and extended health care benefits to them. The respondent Emergis does not manage disability benefits on behalf of GWL, nor does it administer disability benefits to GWL’s policyholders such as employees of OSI. Any decisions with respect to the acceptance or denial of disability claims submitted by GWL are made by those respondents and not the respondent Emergis. They submit that they have no contractual or service relationship with the applicant.

8OSI filed a Response and a Request for Order During Proceedings. In both filings, OSI submits that the applicant was its employee in a Nova Scotia location until January 2010 when the employment relationship was severed. OSI submits that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine an Application filed by an applicant whose employment was located outside of Ontario. OSI agrees with the submissions filed by GWL and submits that the issue of the denial of long term disability benefits is one for the courts and not the Tribunal to determine.

9The applicant filed a Reply in which she submits that the issues raised in her Application are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

10The Code is provincial legislation, providing protection from discrimination for acts that are committed in Ontario. It appears from the narrative attached to the Application that the allegations against the respondents are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the events described in the Application took place outside of Ontario. See Cash v. Stryker Canada, 2009 HRTO 1738. It also appears from the Application, that there are no Code allegations against the respondents Assure, Telus Health Solutions, and Emergis Inc.

11In these circumstances, the Tribunal directs the applicant to provide submissions addressing the following:

a) is the Application with the allegations as described against all the respondents outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the events described seem to have occurred outside of Ontario?

b) Is the issue of the denial of long term disability benefits an issue that is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal?

c) Are there allegations against the respondents Assure, Telus Health Solutions, and Emergis Inc. that fall under the Code?

12The Tribunal directs the applicant to deliver her submissions with the other parties and file them with the Tribunal within 15 days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may wish to review the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, which is found at www.canlii.org. In particular, the applicant may wish to review Smith v. 507417 Ontario, 2010 HRTO 802, East v. Vancouver Police Department, 2010 HRTO 54 and Cash v. Stryker Canada, 2009 HRTO 1738.

13If any of the respondents wish to file submissions in response to the applicant’s submissions, they are directed to deliver them to the other parties and file them with the Tribunal within 5 days of the date of the applicant’s submissions.

14After the period of times set out in paragraphs 9 and 10 above, the Tribunal will consider the parties’ submissions. If the applicant does not provide any submissions, the Tribunal will make its determination based upon the pleadings or may dismiss the Application as being abandoned.

15The Tribunal draws the applicant’s attention to the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. The Guide, at pages 2 – 3, provides a list of resources available to applicants appearing before the Tribunal.

16I am not seized of this matter.