Jeffrey Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2011 HRTO 199

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Jeffrey Seberras

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

INTERIM Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: January 27, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 199

Indexed as: Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Jeffrey Seberras, Applicant ) Self-represented

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, ) Gurjit Brar,

Respondent ) Counsel

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against when he was denied benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A (“WSIA”). He alleges that he was denied benefits because he was found not to meet the requirements for mental stress under s. 13(5) of the WSIA and the policies of the WSIB, and he believes that those policies are discriminatory.

2In its Response and in a Request for Order During Proceedings, the respondent takes the position that the Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It argues that the adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal such as the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) are not “services” under the Code, and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body, citing Ballieram v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 712 and Makhi v. Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2010 HRTO 1047. The applicant argues, in response, that the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. He argues that the claims adjudicator is providing a service and that the denial of benefits based on what he says is discriminatory legislation and a discriminatory policy is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, citing Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 2056 and Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2009 HRTO 1595. He states that his Application is not about the content, reasons or result of a decision.

3There has been extensive jurisprudence, including the cases cited by the parties, on the issue of whether and when a matter involving a decision made pursuant to statute falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Some of that jurisprudence has been conflicting. In my view, it is important and in the public interest to settle upon established jurisprudence on this issue, in particular in relation to the WSIB.

4Accordingly, pursuant to s. 33 of the Code, I will exercise my power as Chair to appoint a panel of three Tribunal members to decide the respondent’s Request for Order During Proceedings. The Registrar is requested to schedule a one-day oral hearing to hear submissions on this issue.

5This Interim Decision shall be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the Office of the Worker Advisor, the Office of the Employer Advisor, and the Crown Law Office–Civil of the Ministry of the Attorney General, so that they may make a request to intervene should they wish.

6The Tribunal sets the following schedule for submissions in this matter:

(1) Any party seeking to intervene shall file its Request to Intervene within one month of the date of this Interim Decision.

(2) The parties are directed to file four (4) copies of any further written submissions and the authorities they rely upon no later than one week prior to the hearing.