Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Jaikaram Persaud Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Mary Mandarino, Sandy Cipovski, and Rose Calvert Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: November 5, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1852 Indexed as: Persaud v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
APPEARANCES
Jaikaram Persaud, Applicant ) Indera Persaud, Representative Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, ) Agnes Wintersinger, Mary Mandarino, Sandy Cipovski, and ) Representative Rose Calvert, Respondents )
INTRODUCTION
1The applicant is an injured worker who receives benefits from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”). He filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), which alleged that the respondents discriminated against him with respect to services because of his disability.
2The purpose of this Decision is to decide whether the Application should be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it has no reasonable prospect of success. The parties attended a summary hearing where they had the opportunity to make oral submissions and present documents and cases, which addressed this issue. At the hearing, I heard oral submissions from the applicant’s representative, and dismissed the Application with written reasons to follow. The following are my written reasons.
BACKGROUND
3In 2007, the applicant injured his back in the workplace. The WSIB subsequently granted him full Loss of Earnings (“LOE”) benefits and a Non-Economic Loss (“NEL”) award.
4In late 2011, Mary Mandarino, who is a WSIB Case Manager, requested that the applicant provide updated medical information to determine whether a redetermination of his NEL award was warranted. Sandy Cipovski, who is a WSIB Work Transition Specialist, also met with the applicant about assessing his ability to re-enter the workforce.
5In 2012, Ms. Mandarino decided that the applicant was capable of returning to part-time work and reduced his LOE benefits from full to partial. She also decided that a redetermination of his NEL award was not warranted because there was insufficient objective medical evidence to support a permanent worsening of his condition. The applicant filed an objection to these decisions.
6In the spring of 2013, the applicant attended an oral hearing before Rose Calvert, who is a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer. Ms. Calvert subsequently issued a decision, which restored the applicant’s receipt of full LOE benefits, but upheld the denial of a redetermination of his NEL award. The decision also stated that the oral hearing was terminated prematurely because the applicant and his representative had no new evidence to present, but simply wished to reiterate the information which had already been submitted.
7On May 17, 2013, the applicant filed an Application with this Tribunal. His allegations may be summarized as follows:
Ms. Mandarino abused, harassed, bullied, and discriminated against him by disregarding updated medical information from his family doctor, trying to force him to return to the workforce, threatening to cut his LOE benefits, and actually cutting his LOE benefits.
Ms. Cipovski abused, harassed, bullied, and discriminated against him by threatening to cut his LOE benefits if he