HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Deborah Guydos
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Respondent
AND BETWEEN
Deborah Guydos
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Respondent
AND BETWEEN
Deborah Guydos
Applicant
-and-
Fair Practices Commission
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jay Sengupta
Indexed as: Guydos v. WSIB
APPEARANCES
Deborah Guydos, Applicant ) Self Represented
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, ) Gurjit Brar, Counsel
Respondent )
Fair Practices Commission, Respondent ) Raj Anand, Counsel
1These are three Applications filed on December 19, 2011 (2011-10539-I) and April 12, 2012 (2012-11318-I and 2012-11319-I) under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has named the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) as the respondent on two of the Applications and the Fair Practices Commission (“FPC”) in the third.
2The Applications allege discrimination in receipt of services on the basis of disability by the FPC, disability, sex, family status, receipt of public assistance and reprisal in respect of the first Application against the WSIB and disability and reprisal by the WSIB in the second.
3The Tribunal, on its own initiative, issued two Case Assessment Directions (CADs) in which it directed that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the Applications should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that they will succeed.
4For the reasons that follow, the Applications are dismissed.
Reasonable Prospect of Success
5Section 1 of the Code states:
Every person has the right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.
6As the Tribunal indicated in the CADs, the issue at the summary hearing is whether the Applications have a reasonable prospect of success and, in particular, whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can show a link between the respondents’ alleged actions and a Code ground.
7It is well established that the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination on the grounds set out in the Code: see Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994 at para.’s 8 - 10.
8As the Tribunal indicated in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, for an application to continue in the Tribunal’s process following a summary hearing, there must be a basis beyond mere speculation and accusations to believe that an applicant could show discrimination on the basis of one of the grounds alleged in the Code.
9Further, as the Tribunal explained in Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (“Seberras”), an application alleging merely misapplication of rules or policies cannot be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation and has no reasonable prospect of success.
10The applicant alleges that the WSIB is playing games with her. She states that that it has complicated her claim and has failed over a number of years, and on a number of occasions, to consider the workplace injuries she has suffered that are of a physical nature because it once accepted an injury that was mental in nature and denied numerous claims unjustly. The essence of the submissions she has made is that because of a prior mental disability, accepted as compensable by the WSIB, she continues to be treated differently by the respondent WSIB and it is as a result of this differential treatment that she has experienced disadvantage, specifically the denial of her claims for benefits.
11The respondent WSIB argues that the two Applications filed against it contain allegations that fit squarely within the situation contemplated in Seberras, in that the applicant is arguing that it has misapplied rules or policies and incorrectly decided aspects of WSIB claims made by her. The WSIB argues that although the applicant asserts that she is a person who either had or has a compensable mental health condition connected to a workplace injury, any connection between that condition and decisions made by it is speculative. In addition, the WSIB argues that no evidence exists or has been put forward to suggest a nexus or link between its actions and disability or any of the other grounds, including reprisal, put forward by the applicant.
12The argument she advances with respect to the respondent FPC is that it refused to consider the complaints she wished to make about WSIB because they had access to her file and knew of her disability.
13The respondent FPC argues that the applicant’s claim against it cannot succeed. The allegation against it is that it did not perform its mandated task appropriately because it had access to the applicant’s WSIB file and the file showed that she has a disability within the meaning of the Code. It points out that almost every person who has contact with the WSIB and the FPC has a disability within the meaning of the Code. The mere existence of a disability does not establish a link between the ground cited and the actions of the FPC.
14Having reviewed the written materials filed in the Applications and the submissions of the parties, I find that the Applications have no reasonable prospect of success.
15The applicant clearly disagrees with a number of decisions made in her claims by the WSIB and with the results of her contact with the FPC. She believes strongly that she has been treated unfairly, her claims for compensation ignored and that she has, in her words, been “belittled”.
16Her own beliefs, however sincerely and strongly held, are insufficient to establish differential treatment resulting in disadvantage in her dealings with the WSIB or the FPC, based on any of the grounds she has identified. The evidence she relies on is too speculative and she is unable to explain how she might reasonably prove her claims of differential treatment. It is also insufficient to establish that the WSIB or its employees intentionally reprised or threatened reprisal against her.
17Accordingly, the Applications are dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 7^th^ day of August, 2012.
“Signed by”
Jay Sengupta
Vice-chair