Haskins v. Great-West Life, 2012 HRTO 306

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

GWL a.k.a. Great-West Scarborough Disability,

The Great-West Life Assurance Company

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: February 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 306

Indexed as: Haskins v. Great-West Life

APPEARANCES

Angela Haskins, Applicant ) No one appearing )

GWL a.k.a. Great-West Life Scarborough ) Susan Murdoch, Counsel

Disability, The Great-West Life )

Assurance Company, Respondents )

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") on February 16, 2010.

2The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision (2011 HRTO 1661) dismissing the Application against Assure, Telus Health Solutions, Emergis and On-Line Support Inc., but permitting it to be continued against the respondents.

3Pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction ("CAD") dated September 7, 2011, the Tribunal directed that a Summary Hearing would be scheduled by way of conference call. This direction was made pursuant to Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there was no reasonable prospect that the Application or part of the Application would succeed.

4At paras. 4-5 of the CAD, the Tribunal stated:

The essence of the Application appears to be the denial of LTD benefits by GWL. While an individual may feel that he or she has been treated unfairly or disagrees with a decision of an insurer, this does not make the insurer's decision discriminatory. Rather, there must be something in the decision, or steps leading up to it, that is discriminatory. (See Westgarth v. Great West Life Assurance, 2011 HRTO 1189, at para. 14 and Ditherbide v. North Central and Sun Life, 2008 BCHRT 384, at para. 70.)

The applicant alleges that GWL did not reveal that it was an "assurance package" rather than an insurance plan, that she did not have a copy of the insurance policy and that no insurance or assurance representative was present to give her information about the product she was signing for, and wrongly denied her LTD benefits. It is unclear, on the face of it, how any of these allegations constitute discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

5A Notice of Summary Hearing was sent to the parties on November 23, 2011 advising that the summary hearing would commence at 9:30 am on February 7, 2012. The Notice of Summary Hearing also advised the parties how to connect to the conference call. The Notice of Summary Hearing was mailed to the applicant at the updated address she provided to the Tribunal on February 26, 2011 and to which the Interim Decision and the CAD were mailed. None of these mailings was returned to the Tribunal.

6The summary hearing was convened by conference call on February 7, 2012 at the scheduled time. Counsel for the respondents was present, as was her client, but the applicant was not present. I advised respondents' counsel that the hearing would be held down until 10:00 am or whenever the applicant attended on the call. At 10:00 am, the applicant was not present on the call and the Tribunal dismissed the Application as being abandoned.

7I am satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the summary hearing. I was not aware of any indication that the applicant would not be attending the hearing. In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her failure to attend the hearing, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.

ORDER

8The Application is dismissed.