HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ewa Debowska Applicant
-and-
Workplace and Safety Insurance Board Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: July 30, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 1141 Indexed as: Debowska v. Workplace and Safety Insurance Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ewa Debowska, Applicant Self-represented
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").
2On June 27, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (the "NOID") on the basis that the Application failed to disclose any allegations of harassment and discrimination within the meaning of the Code, and that the subject-matter of the Application appeared to be the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Human Rights Commission.
3The Application filed submissions on July 23, 2014, with respect to the issues raised in the NOID.
Background
4Since the Application has not yet been delivered to the respondent, the summary of the events is based solely on the applicant's submissions.
5The applicant was injured at work in 2002 and she has had numerous interactions with the respondent with respect to her entitlements pursuant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sch. A ("WSIA").
6On August 30, 2007, the applicant made a complaint with the Human Rights Commission (the "Commission complaint") alleging that the respondent had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The applicant attached to this Application the Commission complaint and the witness statement obtained by a Commission investigator. Amongst other things, the Commission complaint was with respect to her monetary entitlements pursuant to WSIA and the selection of her education plans under the Labour Market Re-entry ("LMR") programs.
7Amendments to the Human Rights Code came into effect on June 30, 2008. These changes created a direct access system of filing applications with the Tribunal and enacted a series of transitional provisions to deal with outstanding complaints previously filed with the Commission. On October 3, 2008, the applicant abandoned her Commission complaint and filed an application with the Tribunal pursuant to one of these transitional provisions, subsection 53(3). Her application was assigned file number T-0334-08 (the "transitional application").
8On April 27, 2009, the Tribunal issued a Case Resolution Conference Decision, 2009 HRTO 488, which dismissed the transitional application.
9On April 7, 2014, the applicant filed this Application which alleges that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The Application discusses the history of the applicant's interactions with the respondent. The applicant also raises a new issue which has recently arisen in 2013 when she requested that the respondent pay her WSIA benefits in a lump sum amount because she wants to start her own business and move out of the country. It appears that the respondent has advised that the applicant does not qualify for a lump sum payment.
10In her submissions in response to the NOID, the applicant asserts that the Application falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal because the respondent took complete financial control over her life, she was not able to select a "proper education" and because the respondent "stole a lot of her compensation benefits" to support private business and schools.
Decision
11Section 53(8) of the Code states:
No application, other than an application under subsection (3) or (5), may be made to the Tribunal if the subject-matter of the application is the same or substantially the same as the subject-matter of a complaint that was filed with the Commission under the old Part IV.
12Having reviewed the subject-matter of the Application and the Commission complaint, I find that the allegations contained are almost identical in nature. The Application raises issues with respect to the applicant's WSIB benefits and LMR retraining which were already the subject-matter of the Commission complaint. As such subsection 53(8) bars her from making an Application with respect to this subject-matter except pursuant to one of the transitional provisions, an option she has already pursued.
13Regarding the remaining allegation in the Application which is with respect to the applicant seeking a lump sum payment from the respondent, I find that the applicant has failed to identify how or why this decision is discriminatory. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over breaches of the Code. In these circumstances it is plain and obvious that this allegation does not fall within the purview of the Code.
Order
14The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 30th day of July, 2014.
"Signed by"
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair