Abdalla Ali v. Manulife Financial, 2012 HRTO 901

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Abdalla Ali

Applicant

-and-

Manulife Financial

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 7, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 901

Indexed as: Ali v. Manulife Financial

Appearances

Abdalla Ali, Applicant ) Self-represented

Manulife Financial, Respondent ) Sophia Zaide, Counsel

1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of Part IV of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In a Case Assessment Direction dated January 30, 2012, the Tribunal on its own initiative directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether this Application should be dismissed on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed. The respondent was relieved of the obligation to file a Response to the Application.

2A summary hearing was held by teleconference on May 5, 2012, by teleconference. Both parties participated.

3Rules 19A.1 and 19A.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure read 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.

19A.2 Rules 16 and 17 do not apply to summary hearings. The Tribunal may give directions about steps the parties must take prior to the summary hearing, including disclosure or witness statements.

4Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9:

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.

5This case falls into the second category of cases discussed above. That is, assuming all of the facts alleged by the applicant to be true, is there any reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to establish a link between the incidents complained of and the alleged prohibited ground.

6The applicant claims discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of a disability. He alleges that he applied for short-term disability benefits made available by his employer and administered by the respondent. Although his benefits were approved for a period of time, they were terminated and not reinstated. The applicant alleges that the denial of benefits was discriminatory. The applicant states that he provided the medical information he was asked for but the respondent did not believe his doctor. The applicant stated at the hearing, but provided no details, that other people who provided nothing had their benefits paid.

7The respondent stated that this was a simple dispute about entitlement to a benefit. The respondent stated that the applicant had claimed to be ill with pancreatitis. Based on the medical note provided, his claim was approved for three weeks. When the applicant did not return to work after three weeks, the respondent asked for further information. The respondent stated that further information was provided and, while it indicated that the applicant may have been experiencing symptoms of pancreatitis, it did not establish why he was unable to work. The respondent asked for more information and sent a letter to the applicant for his physician, setting out what was required. No further medical information was provided. The respondent never heard again directly from the applicant.

8In considering this issue I found helpful the Tribunal’s analysis in Westgarth v. Great West Life Assurance, 2011 HRTO 1189:

Clearly, the Great-West LTD benefits program requires Great-West to make determinations as to whether persons are eligible for benefits under the program because of the nature of their disabilities. The program does not provide benefits for everyone with a disability. This type of decision is based on an assessment of the nature of a disability and a decision of this kind is not, in itself, an act of discrimination under the Code. As stated in Dithurbide v. North Central and Sun Life, 2008 BCHRT 384 (para 70), simply because an individual feels they have been treated unfairly or disagrees with a decision of an insurer, does not make the decision discriminatory. Rather, there must be something in the decision, or the steps leading up to it, that is discriminatory. In the present case the applicant makes no specific claim as to why Great-West’s decision is discriminatory except to state that she disagrees with its assessment of her disability.

9In my view, having considered the contents of the Application and the applicant’s submissions at the summary hearing, the applicant’s claim is, in its entirety, that the respondent unfairly denied him short-term disability benefits. The applicant disagrees with that decision and believes that he provided sufficient information to substantiate his entitlement. However, the dispute between the applicant and respondent was not whether he was a person with a disability, but simply about whether the applicant was unable to work as a result of his condition and therefore entitled to short-term disability benefits. There is no indication that he was subject to differential treatment on the basis of an alleged disability in the manner in which his claim was dealt with or determined by the respondent.

10The Tribunal does not have a general power to deal with allegations of unfairness or the refusal of an insurer to pay benefits. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment on the grounds set out in the Code. To succeed in this Application, the applicant must be able to point to something other than the fact that he was denied benefits by the respondent: See Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797, and Matthews v. Chrysler Canada Inc., 2011 HRTO 1939.

11I find there is no reasonable prospect that the applicant will be able to establish a link between the denial of the benefits he claimed and any of the protected grounds in the Code. Therefore, the Application is dismissed.