Sabina Kandik v. York Fire and Casualty Insurance, 2010 HRTO 2233

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

BETWEEN:

Sabina Kandik Applicant

-and-

York Fire and Casualty Insurance, Ajay Shukla, Martin Delage and Sarina Amatuzio Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Faisal Bhabha Date: November 8, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2233 Indexed as: Kandik v. York Fire and Casualty Insurance

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 August 3, 2010, alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities.

2The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis the Application failed to allege a ground or area of discrimination and because the Application "deals with the processing of a claim with an insurance carrier and its agents in services… [which] do not fall under the HRTO's jurisdiction." The applicant was given 30 days to file written submissions explaining why she believes the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

3On October 29, 2010, the applicant filed submissions in response to the Notice of Intent to Dismiss. Although the Tribunal's Notice states that the applicant failed to allege a ground or area of discrimination, the defect in the Application (which, in fact, states that it is based on creed, age and reprisal) is not the failure to identify a ground, but the failure to establish a connection between the respondent's alleged conduct and the Code. As well, while the processing of a claim for insurance benefits arguably raises issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, an applicant must make a connection between the impugned actions of the respondents in dealing with the applicant's claim, and prohibited discrimination under the Code.

4The applicant has had the opportunity to explain at length her feeling that she has been unjustly treated by her insurer in processing and administering benefits under the policy. She states that she is seeking human rights remedies because she does not feel that the respondent is treating her "properly as a human being and as a member of the society."

5The Tribunal does not have the power to remedy general claims of unfairness in the delivery of services. Rather, an applicant must show that there is discrimination based upon a prohibited ground within the meaning of the Code. Similarly, in order to establish a reprisal, an applicant must show that the respondent took deliberate retaliatory action in response to the applicant's asserting rights under the Code.

6The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to hearing applications that allege violations of the Code. There is nothing on the face of the Application that could lead to a conclusion, even if the applicant's allegations were accepted as true, that the respondent has discriminated against the applicant on the basis of her creed or age, or reprised against her for asserting Code rights, notwithstanding the applicant's sincere belief that she has been ill-treated.

7Because the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide, it is accordingly dismissed.