HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Edward Marzec
Applicant
-and-
Canada Pension Plan Disability Board
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Mary Truemner
Indexed as: Marzec v. Canada Pension Plan Disability Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Edward Marzec, Applicant
Self-represented
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under s. 34 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 and reprisal.
2The Application alleges that the applicant should have qualified for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, but did not.
3The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application because it appeared to the Tribunal that the Application is outside its jurisdiction for two reasons: 1) because the respondent appears to be a federal government department agency or a federally-regulated service provider; and 2) because the narrative attached to the Application fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent.
NO ALLEGATIONS OF ACTS OF DISCRIMINATION
4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the Application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the areas and grounds listed in the Code.
5The Application states that the applicant had worked enough years to qualify for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, but alleges that his doctor did not submit forms in time, and he was disqualified in 1981. The Application alleges that the applicant’s lawyer was unhelpful.
6The applicant’s submissions in response to the NOID include many documents, some of them transcripts from various proceedings that do not appear related to the Canada Pension Plan, and some of them letters to and from the applicant with respect to institutions with which he has been involved. It is clear that the applicant believes that he has not had a fair life, but as the Tribunal has noted on many occasions, it does not have the general power to deal with allegations of unfairness. It can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment 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 a link between a respondent’s alleged actions and a Code ground.
7Neither the Application nor the documents in his submissions replying to the NOID shed any light on how the denial of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits might amount to discrimination because of disability.
8The Application alleges reprisal also. Section 8 of the Code provides:
- Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.
9The applicant left blank the section of the Application form with questions about reprisal, and there is nothing describing what might be construed as reprisal in the narrative attached to the Application, or in his reply submissions to the NOID.
10I am satisfied that it is plain and obvious that this Application raises no potential Code claim by the respondent; therefore, it is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed for that reason. There is no need for me to address the potential lack of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it appears that the respondent is a federal, not provincial, service provider.
11The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 18th day of June, 2013.
“Signed by”
Mary Truemner
Vice-chair