Waite v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 1789

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Gerald Waite Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: September 19, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1789 Indexed as: Waite v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

APPEARANCES

Gerald Waite, Applicant Self-represented

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Respondent Gurjit Brar, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability. The applicant alleges that he is being discriminated against by the respondent in the course of a treatment plan.

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated January 30, 2012, the Tribunal, on its own initiative, scheduled this matter for a Summary Hearing pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The CAD drew to the applicant’s attention previous decisions of the Tribunal which establish that the Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with alleged unfairness in benefit programs or to review the denial of benefits under a government program.

3The Summary Hearing process is described in Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. The issue in a Summary Hearing is whether the Application should be dismissed in whole or in part on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application will succeed.

4In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8-10, the Tribunal observed that in some cases, the focus of the summary hearing will be on the legal analysis and whether the allegations could reasonably be considered to amount to a Code violation. In other cases, the focus will be on the applicant’s ability to point to evidence which is reasonably available and which would demonstrate a link between the actions of the respondent and the prohibited grounds alleged by the applicant. The Tribunal also emphasized the importance of being attentive to the fact that in some cases of alleged discrimination, the respondent may be in possession of most or all of the evidence related to the applicant’s allegations and it may be appropriate to give the applicant the opportunity to acquire that evidence through disclosure and cross-examination of the respondent’s witnesses.

5As the Tribunal noted in Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389, at para. 17, the Tribunal does not have the power to deal with general allegations of unfairness and that there must be a basis for the allegations beyond mere speculation.

ANALYSIS

6The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions to assist the Tribunal in determining whether his Application should proceed.

7The applicant states that he was injured at work in 2005. He has been receiving benefits for that injury from the respondent. He prefers chiropractic treatment for his injury over medication because he self-identifies as an addict. The applicant alleges differential treatment on the basis that he is required to get a new medical note to support the continuation of his chiropractic treatment every 12 weeks, while a person who is taking medication for the same injury is not required to do so. He indicates that he has not been refused chiropractic treatment but that he feels “hassled” by the requirements imposed on him.

8What the applicant alleges in his Application are events which, if believed, relate to administrative issues associated with the continuation of his benefits and not to the ground of disability under the Code. The Tribunal does not have the general power to deal with alleged unfairness in the process by which the applicant receives benefits for his chiropractic treatment. See: Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115; Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797. As a result, the Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.