HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Kelly Maika Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Minister of Government Services and Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
Respondents
Interim DecisION
Adjudicator: David Muir
Indexed as: Maika v. Ontario (Government Services)
1This is an Application filed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The respondents have each filed Responses (Form 2). In their Response Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife) asserted that the Application should be dismissed for a number of reasons.
3In correspondence received by the Tribunal on September 30, 2013 the respondent requested that a decision be made on the request in their Response that the Application be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code because the substance of the applicant’s allegations were dealt with in Manulife’s internal appeal process with the result that the applicant is now being provided with the benefit she has claimed.
4The request is denied. The Tribunal has held that in determining whether or not section 45.1 is applicable the first question is whether or not the process relied on was a proceeding within the meaning of the section. The Tribunal has also held that in order to constitute a proceeding within the meaning of the section it must have a statutory basis. See Campbell v. Toronto District School Board , 2008 HRTO 62.
5As I understand Manulife’s position the claim is that because the applicant was eventually awarded benefits after engaging the respondent’s benefits the substance of the Application has been appropriately dealt with. In the absence of any claim that the process relied on by the respondent meets the test set out in Campbell, above, section 45.1 is not applicable to these circumstances.
6I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of October, 2013.
“Signed by”
David Muir
Vice-chair