Guiseppe Difalco v. WSIB, 2012 HRTO 697

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Guiseppe Difalco

Applicant

-and-

WSIB

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: April 5, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 697

Indexed as: Difalco v. WSIB

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Guiseppe Difalco, Applicant ) Self-represented

1The applicant filed an Application with the Tribunal under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on February 10, 2012. He alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of place of origin, citizenship, disability, record of offences, and association with a person identified by another ground.

2The correspondence attached to the applicant’s Application from the respondent suggests that the applicant filed several claims for benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sched. A (“the applicant’s claims”) and that he disputes the authority of some of the respondent’s employees to make decisions in his claims because they have failed to provide him with copies of oaths of office pertaining to their employment with the respondent. The applicant alleges that employees of the respondent are required to take an “oath of office and follow God[‘]s law”. The applicant alleges that he requested copies of the oaths that some employees executed pertaining to their own employment with the respondent, his request has been denied and he has been “punished” because he asked for these documents in that he has not been recognized as a human being. The Application has not been sent to the respondent for Response.

3On February 12, 2012, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”). The Tribunal stated that upon review, it appeared that the Application was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent. The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions responding to this issue.

4The applicant provided materials, by facsimile, to the Tribunal on February 21, 27, 28, 29, March 7, 29 and 30, 2012. Included in this material was: a document marked “Exhibit 1”; a WSIAT “Readiness Form”; three letters from the applicant to WSIB (two of them dated March 29, 2012 and sent twice to the Tribunal); and two letters from the applicant to the Tribunal.

5In one of his letters to the Tribunal, the applicant states that he is requesting a copy of the oath that the resolution officer and officer “taking care of his file” have signed pertaining to their employment. In another letter to the Tribunal, the applicant submits that “W.S.I.B. and their employee’s [sic] discriminated against me as a citizen of Canada and they have punished me and continue to punish me by not sending their signed Oath of Office and their Lawyer”. He submits:

They have dishonoured God and the Queen and her Oath. I bel[ie]ve in the Canadian flag and not the Ontario flag. The Law of God forbid’s [sic] mankind from legislat[i]ons and new laws.

6The document entitled Exhibit 1, the WSIAT “Readiness Form” and the correspondence from the applicant to the respondent are not responsive to the issue of whether or not the allegations in the Application identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. Exhibit 1 appears to be the oath that Queen Elizabeth swore at her coronation in 1953. The WSIAT “Readiness Form” sets out reasons as to why the applicant’s complaint is not ready to proceed to appeal before WSIAT. The correspondence from the applicant to WSIB are requests for copies of the employee’s oaths of office or responses to the respondent’s denial to produce them.

7The applicant does not allege that he is an employee of the respondent or attempting to become an employee. While he has marked off the social ground of employment as the basis for his Application, it appears that he is alleging that the respondent discriminated against him on the social ground of goods, services and facilities.

8Regardless of the applicant alleging discrimination in employment or goods, services and facilities, the Application is dismissed. The allegations against the respondent pertain to its failure to provide the applicant with copies of oaths of office executed by employees involved in the applicant’s claims and pertaining to their own employment. It is not the role of this Tribunal to determine whether or not the respondent’s employees are required to executed oaths of office and allegiance to the Queen, have executed oaths of office and allegiance or determine the consequences for a failure of the respondent’s employee(s) to execute such oaths. Instead, the role of the Tribunal is to determine whether harassment or discrimination in the provision of services to the applicant has occurred contrary to the Code.

9The Application does not contain any allegations pertaining to discrimination or harassment because of the applicant’s place of origin, citizenship, disability, record of offences, and/or association with a person identified by another ground. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.