HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Brown Applicant
-and-
Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: June 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1164 Indexed as: Brown v. Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
William Brown, Applicant Self-represented
Manulife Financial Veronica Mohan, Counsel
1This Application was filed on January 24, 2012 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability. The Application was filed as against “Manions, Wilkins & Associates, A Division of Manulife Financial”.
2On May 9, 2012 and May 18, 2012, counsel for Manulife Financial wrote to the Tribunal and advised that “Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd.” is wrongly identified in the Application as “a division of Manulife Financial”, when in fact Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. is a third party administrator contracted to administer the policy claims insured by The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife Financial”). Counsel for Manulife Financial submitted that the Application should be deferred pending the outcome of a civil action against “Manion, Wilkins and Associates Ltd. and Manulife Financial Corporation” launched by the applicant in December 2011.
3By way of Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated June 4, 2012, the Tribunal noted that there were a number of preliminary matters that required clarification.
4First, it was unclear as to which entity between Manulife Financial and/or Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. the applicant was seeking to proceed against in filing his Application. The Tribunal directed the applicant to write to the Tribunal, copied to Manulife Financial, and confirm his intentions with respect to Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. (“Manion”). The CAD directed that if the applicant sought to proceed against Manion he was required to provide the proper address for Manion following which the Tribunal would deliver the Application to Manion.
5The CAD also noted that given the existence of the applicant’s civil action against Manulife Financial and Manion seeking compensation disability benefits, emotional distress and punitive/aggravated/exemplary damages, there may be an issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code. The CAD directed that, following the applicant’s clarification of his intentions with respect to the respondent(s), the parties were to file written submissions with respect to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code. Section 34(11) of the Code prevents the Tribunal from proceeding with an application where a civil claim has been filed with a court requesting a remedy based on the alleged human rights infringements. See for example, Beaver v. Dr. Hans Epp Dentistry Professional Corporation, 2008 HRTO 282.
6On June 8, 2012, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal, copied to Manulife, and confirmed that his intention was to name Manion as the “sole respondent” and provided Manion’s current address.
7In these circumstances, the Tribunal directs as follows:
a) It appears that the applicant is seeking to proceed with this Application as against Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. as the sole respondent and, therefore, the style of cause will be corrected to reflect the same;
b) The Tribunal will deliver a copy of this Interim Decision to Manulife Financial and, based on the position taken by the applicant, remove Manulife Financial from these proceedings;
c) The Tribunal will deliver a copy of this Interim Decision, a Notice of Application and all other material in the file, including the applicant’s June 8, 2012 correspondence, to Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. as the sole respondent in this matter;
d) Within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision, the parties are required to file with the Tribunal, copied to each other, written submissions as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this Application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code; and
e) The Tribunal will consider the parties’ materials and may issue further Directions with respect to any of the issues set out above and/or may schedule future steps accordingly.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 13th day of June, 2012.
”Signed by”____________
Ena Chadha Vice-chair