Radoi v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2011 HRTO 869

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul Radoi

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: May 4, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 869 Indexed as: Radoi v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Paul Radoi, Applicant (Self-represented)

1The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application is within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 16, 2010, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to employment because of his race, place of origin, disability, creed, and age, and subjected him to reprisal.

3It is not clear from the Application how the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) and the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”) allegedly violated the Code, but the applicant appears to be challenging a series of decisions that they made from the 1990s to 2009. The last decision was issued by WSIAT on December 10, 2009.

4On January 28, 2011, this Tribunal’s Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed the applicant that his Application appears to be outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and invited him to provide written submissions on this issue.

5The applicant filed submissions on February 25, 2011, but they do not specifically address the issue of jurisdiction.

6In my view, the Application is outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7Although the Application lists the area of alleged discrimination as “employment”, he does not allege that he was in an employment relationship with the respondents. Rather, the applicant’s allegations appear to be related to his entitlement to statutory benefits, which are administered by WSIB pursuant to its enabling legislation. It is therefore more appropriate to analyze the applicant’s allegations in the context of “services”: see Lindberg v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2009 HRTO 463, at paras. 5-6.

8In essence, the applicant is disputing the result of the decisions made by various decision-makers within WSIB, and then, on appeal, by WSIAT. This Tribunal has held that it does not have jurisdiction to review decisions of other statutory tribunals on the basis that the “content, reasons and result” contained in a decision of a statutory decision-maker cannot be understood to be part of the “service” that a statutory tribunal is providing to the public: see, for example, Baird v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 99, and Christianson v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2009 HRTO 886.

9The Application is dismissed.