Stannie Muir v. Humber River Regional Hospital, 2013 HRTO 2063

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Stannie Muir

Applicant

-and-

Humber River Regional Hospital

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: December 13, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 2063

Indexed as: Muir v. Humber River Regional Hospital

APPEARANCES

Stannie Muir, Applicant

John Westdal, Counsel

Humber River Regional Hospital, Respondent

Carla Nassar, Counsel

1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2Pursuant to an Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 724, this Application was consolidated with another Application filed by the applicant against the respondent in Tribunal file 2012-10850-I, and scheduled to be heard on December 12 and 13, 2013.

3At the commencement of the hearing on December 12, 2013, the parties made oral submissions with respect to whether the Application in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I ought to be dismissed on the basis that it did not raise issues within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide and/or on the basis that the Application had no reasonable prospect of success. After hearing the parties’ submissions, I dismissed the Application in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I for the following reasons, which were delivered to the parties orally on December 12, 2013:

In its Response to the Application in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I, and in other correspondence, the respondent has taken the position that the Application does not allege discrimination because of disability and therefore does not raise an issue that is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide. In particular, the respondent relies upon Westgarth v. Great West Life Assurance, 2011 HRTO 1189, in which the Tribunal found that a determination that a person is ineligible for benefits under a disability benefits plan is not, in and of itself, an act of discrimination under the Code.

Having reviewed the Application in Tribunal 2011-09434-I, and having heard the submissions of the parties this morning, I agree that the Application in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I ought to be dismissed on the basis that it does not raise an alleged Code infringement and therefore has no reasonable prospect of success within the meaning of Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

The Application in Tribunal file 2011-9434-I alleges that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by denying his claim for sick pay. In particular, the applicant contends that he provided medical information that met the test required for the granting of sick pay benefits. However, there are no allegations in this case that, if true, could establish that the respondent’s decision to deny the claim for benefits was disadvantageous treatment that the applicant experienced “because of” his disability, which is what would be required in order for a finding of discrimination to be made. The applicant contends that the respondent’s decision to deny his claim for sick pay was unjust. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with claims of alleged unfairness or mistreatment in general, only treatment that is discriminatory, that is, disadvantageous treatment “because of” a prohibited ground under the Code.

Given that the applicant does not allege facts in this case that could establish that the denial of sick pay was discriminatory “because of” his disability, and given that this is the only issue raised in the Application in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I, the Application must be dismissed on the basis that it does not raise an issue that is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide and therefore has no reasonable prospect of success. This decision is in keeping with the Tribunal’s decisions in Westgarth, relied upon by the respondent, and Ali v. Manulife Financial, 2012 HRTO 901, which was referred to in the Tribunal’s December 9, 2013 Case Assessment Direction in this matter.

Nor can I accept the applicant’s submission that the mere fact that the respondent conveyed to the applicant that it doubted that his disability prevented him from working was an act of discrimination within the meaning of the Code. If the applicant were correct in this submission, it seems to me that every decision to deny benefits could be construed as an act of discrimination, because every decision to deny benefits presumably involves the respondent expressing to the applicant that it does not agree that he or she is disabled to the extent claimed by the applicant. More importantly, even if I were persuaded that the respondent treated the applicant in a disadvantageous manner when it told him that it was denying his claim for sick benefits, there are no facts alleged that the alleged disadvantageous treatment was “because of” the applicant’s disability.

In sum, I find that the applicant has no reasonable prospect of success in proving that the respondent discriminated against him when it denied him sick pay benefits and/or conveyed its decision in that regard to the applicant. The Application in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I is dismissed accordingly.

However, this decision is not a determination of the admissibility of any evidence in respect of the Application in Tribunal file 2012-10850-I, including facts that may have been particularized only in Tribunal file 2011-09434-I.