HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Muhammad Khoja on behalf of Sadiq Khoja
Applicant
-and-
The Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada and Amy Gordon
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Date: August 8, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1196
Indexed as: Khoja v. The Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada
APPEARANCES
Muhammad Khoja on behalf of Sadiq Khoja, Applicant
Self-represented
The Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada and Amy Gordon, Respondents
Mario Delgado, Counsel
1This is an Application filed by Muhammad Khoja (the “applicant”) on behalf of his son Sadiq Khoja (the “complainant”) under s. 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services. The Application alleges that Sadiq Khoja was denied long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits by the respondents and that this denial is discriminatory on the basis of disability and race.
2There is no dispute between the parties that the reason that the applicant’s son was denied LTD is because the respondent determined that he had a pre-existing condition. The applicant takes the position that his son’s claim was mishandled by the respondents, that he was treated disrespectfully and unfairly in the processing of the LTD claim. The applicant also believes that his son should not have been disentitled from receiving LTD on the basis that he has an alleged pre-existing condition.
3In a Case Assessment Direction dated May 20, 2014, the Tribunal directed, of its own initiative, that a Summary Hearing would be held to determine if the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondents were directed not to file a Response.
4The Summary Hearing was held on August 5, 2014 via telephone conference call. All of the parties filed written submissions and participated at the Summary Hearing.
DECISION
5Details about the nature of a summary hearing were set out as follows in Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, 2010 HRTO 1994, at paras. 8 and 9:
In some cases, the issue at the summary hearing may be whether, assuming all the allegations in the application to be true, it has a reasonable prospect of success. In these cases, the focus will generally be on the legal analysis and whether what the applicant alleges may be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation.
In other cases, the focus of the summary hearing may be on whether there is a reasonable prospect that the applicant can prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his or her Code rights were violated. Often, such cases will deal with whether the applicant can show a link between an event and the grounds upon which he or she makes the claim. The issue will be whether there is a reasonable prospect that evidence the applicant has or that is reasonably available to him or her can show a link between the event and the alleged prohibited ground.
6In this case I am also guided by the reasoning in Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (“Seberras”) summarized in part at para. 5:
This Tribunal does not have the power to review decisions under benefit programs, including those based on disability, to determine if they are correct under the legislation, regulations, or policies governing the program. An Application related to a denial of benefits should be dismissed if there is not an allegation of discrimination under the Code. A Code application alleging merely that a decision-maker misapplied the rules of a program or misinterpreted medical documentation cannot be reasonably considered to amount to a Code violation and has no reasonable prospect of success.
7I have reviewed the applicant’s detailed written submissions and oral submissions, and I find that these submissions do not provide any basis, or any proposed evidence which could link the denial of the LTD claim to either race and/or disability. Though in this case, the corporate respondent is not a statutory body, the reasoning in Sebarras is of assistance because it appears that the applicant is seeking to appeal the respondents’ decision to deny his LTD claim through this Application. The applicant is dissatisfied and believes that the manner in which his son’s claim for LTD has been managed by the respondents is unfair. However, the Tribunal is not the proper forum to determine whether in fact the complainant is disentitled from receiving LTD benefits because of a pre-existing condition unless the denial of the benefit is discriminatory.
8With respect to the remainder of the applicant’s allegations including that his son was treated disrespectfully by the respondents I find that the applicant has not proposed any evidence which could link this alleged conduct to either the complainant’s race and/or disability. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over allegations of unfairness which are not linked to the Code.
9In this case, having considered both the written and oral submissions of the applicant I find that there is no reasonable prospect that he will be able to establish that his son was denied LTD benefits or that he was treated in a discriminatory manner by the respondents on the basis of either his race and/or his disability.
ORDER
10The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 8th day of August, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair