HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ilo Vidinovski
Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Vidinovski v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
APPEARANCES
Ilo Vidinovski, Applicant
Self- represented
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board,
Respondent
Gurjit Brar, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal on December 23, 2011 pursuant to section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code”), alleging discrimination in services because of disability. The applicant also alleges reprisal by the respondent.
2Pursuant to section 43(2) of the Code and Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, a summary hearing by teleconference was held before me on June 29, 2012. The purpose of the summary hearing was to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that it would succeed.
3The parties both made oral submissions during the summary hearing. The Application was also considered by me.
ANALYSIS
4Rule 19A.1 reads as follows:
19A.1 The Tribunal may hold a summary hearing, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, on the question of whether an 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.
5In Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 7-9, the Tribunal made the following observations on the type of inquiry that may be involved in a summary hearing:
A summary hearing is generally ordered at an early stage in the process. In some cases, the respondent may not have been required to provide a response. In others, the respondent may have responded but disclosure of all arguably relevant documents and the preparation of witness statements, which generally occur following the Notice of Hearing, will not yet have happened.
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
6The applicant alleges that he was injured in the workplace and is dissatisfied with decisions with regard to his claim rendered by the respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) and by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”). In the Application, the applicant states:
The WSIB Modus Operandi: Reprisal…To my great surprise and misfortune, I have found the WSIB to be erratically recalcitrant and to have a penchant for reprisal by way of termination or reduction or delay of compensation and/or benefits.
7In his oral submissions, the applicant explained the basis of his claim of discrimination is that the WSIB is, “not following the law”, “acted unjustifiably and contrary to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Act” and “was cruel and contemptible towards me”.
8During the course of the hearing I asked the applicant what evidence he had that he was treated differently than other WSIB claimants. He responded that he could only, “presume or surmise” that he was treated differently.
9I asked the applicant why he believed he was being treated differently because of a disability. He stated that, “because that is why I am at the WSIB…I don’t know why they are treating me differently…I can’t explain it”.
10I also asked the applicant what evidence he had that the respondent actions were intended as a reprisal for claiming and/or asserting his human rights so as to engage s. 8 of the Code. The applicant advised he had no such evidence.
11Having reviewed the Application, and having heard from the applicant, I find nothing in the allegations that suggests that the respondent treated the applicant in a differential manner or reprised against him pursuant to s. 8 of the Code. In my view what the applicant is attempting to do is to appeal the WSIB and WSIAT decisions to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal’s sole jurisdiction is to deal with alleged discrimination or reprisal on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in an application, an applicant must be able to prove discrimination on the basis of a Code ground on a balance of probabilities. To show discrimination, an applicant must prove that he was treated differentially in a negative way by the respondent and then prove a link between the respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground. In the present case, it is clear that the applicant has no evidence to prove differential treatment. Moreover, even if he was treated differentially he is also unable to point to a link to the grounds alleged.
12I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will succeed in establishing a breach of the Code in respect of his allegations.
ORDER
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th day of December, 2012.
“Signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member