Lekkas v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 2311

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Helen Lekkas Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Community and Social Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ian R. Mackenzie Date: December 23, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2311 Indexed as: Lekkas v. Ontario (Community and Social Services)

APPEARANCES and WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Helen Lekkas, Applicant ) Self-represented and Paul Ott, ) representative

Ontario Disability Support Program, ) Mimi Singh, Counsel Respondent )

1Helen Lekkas has filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), in which she alleges that she has been discriminated against by the Ontario Disability Support Program (the “ODSP”) on the basis of disability.

2The Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) directed, on its own initiative, that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed: Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) issued on August 9, 2011.

Submissions

3The applicant is in receipt of ODSP benefits. She has alleged that she is not receiving the appropriate amount of benefits. She submitted a letter from her doctor, who stated that she was disabled and was not receiving her full ODSP benefits. The applicant also submitted a letter to the Tribunal alleging that the ODSP was “trying to hide the fact that they are underpaying me”.

4The applicant submitted that she had not been treated fairly by the ODSP. She also alleged that she was denied Mandatory Special Necessities Benefits. She also alleged that the ODSP was attempting to recover payments received from the Canada Pension Plan. She submitted that she was being discriminated against and that she was not treated with respect.

5The respondent submitted that although it was respectful of the applicant’s concerns, it did not appear that the substance of the allegations had any connection to the Code.

6The respondent submitted that the Tribunal has no general jurisdiction over unfairness. The more appropriate forum to address the concerns of the applicant would be the Social Benefits Tribunal which has the jurisdiction to address disputes about eligibility for ODSP and the amount of benefits received. The respondent referred me to Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services) 2011 HRTO 1797.

Analysis and Decision

7The applicant is clearly frustrated by her dealings with the ODSP. However, for the reasons which follow, I have concluded that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear her allegations and as such the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.

8As noted in the CAD, the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness or whether government benefits are sufficient. The CAD also noted: “In this case, the applicant must be able to prove that she has been discriminated against in comparison with others who do not have a disability or who have a different disability.”

9In Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797 at para. 1 the Tribunal stated:

Many types of benefits depend on the nature and extent of a person’s disability, and those administering such programs must make decisions about whether a person qualifies and the extent of benefits they will receive. Such decisions will often be connected with the person’s disability and be based on the nature and extent of that disability. … In my view, the prohibition against discrimination because of disability in … the Code does not give this Tribunal the power to review decisions under disability-based benefit programs to determine whether they are correct under the legislation, regulations or policies governing the program; this would be giving an appeal function to the Tribunal that the Legislature did not intend. …

10It is not discrimination under the Code for an organization implementing a disability benefit program to misapply the program as it applies to one individual. In this case the proper forum for addressing such concerns is an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.

11In some cases, differential treatment of people with different disabilities may amount to discrimination: Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services). 2010 HRTO 360. In this case, the applicant has also not alleged differential treatment as compared to others with different disabilities.

12The applicant is convinced that she is not receiving the appropriate amount of benefits under the ODSP. She is also convinced that she has not been treated fairly by the respondent in the process used to determine those benefits. These concerns, if proven, do not constitute claims of discrimination under the Code. The applicant has not shown how the determination of her level of benefits constitutes discrimination under the Code. The proper forum for addressing the appropriate level of benefits under the ODSP is the Social Benefits Tribunal.

13I find that the allegation of discrimination in the determination of the level of benefit paid to the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success.

ORDER

14The Application is dismissed.