HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
David McLarry Applicant
-and-
Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Date: September 5, 2014
Citation: 2014 HRTO 1316
Indexed as: McLarry v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
David McLarry, Applicant Self-represented
1This Decision explains why the Tribunal is dismissing this Application for delay. The 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").
2The Code requires that an Application be brought within a year of the last alleged incident of discrimination or, if a series of incidents is alleged, within a year of the last incident in the series. If the Application is brought late, then the Tribunal has no jurisdiction unless the applicant can show that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
3In this case the Application was brought on July 23, 2014. It deals with how the respondent ("WSIB") made a determination about his level of earnings at the time he was injured in a workplace accident. The injury occurred in 2000 and the WSIB granted him benefits in 2002. The applicant thinks that the WSIB wrongly assessed his level of earnings and then used this wrong information to calculate his benefits. He is of the view that in doing so, the WSIB discriminated against him on the basis of disability.
4Since then the applicant has made his views about the WSIB decision known to the WSIB, various politicians and the Ministry of Labour. He has written to the WSIB and it has indicated to him that it will not change its decision. Its most recent correspondence to him was on July 4, 2014.
5The applicant made an earlier Application to the Tribunal raising the same issue. In Decision 2011 HRTO 2266 the Tribunal dealt with the issue by dismissing the Application for delay.
6On August 18, 2014 the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. The Notice directs the applicant to make submissions on why his Application should not be dismissed for delay and because the decision of the WSIB was an adjudicative decision that the Tribunal has no authority to review.
7The applicant has provided submissions, but they neither address the issue of delay nor the issue of the role of the WSIB as an adjudicative body. The submissions basically state that the WSIB decision was wrong and the applicant includes correspondence from the WSIB with his submissions. The WSIB correspondence simply reiterates its position that its 2002 decision was correct and will not be reviewed.
8The WSIB letters, including the most recent one from July of 2014, are not new decisions by the WSIB. They are just communications that try to explain to the applicant that the 2002 decision stands. Even if I were to accept that the Tribunal can scrutinise the correctness of decisions of other adjudicative tribunals - which I do not – in this case the relevant decision would be one that was made 12 years ago.
9As noted in Corrigan v. Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, 2008 HRTO 424, to determine that a delay in pursuing one's Code rights was incurred in good faith, the applicant must provide a reasonable explanation for why he did not pursue his Code rights in a timely manner.
10The applicant has not explained why he is bringing an Application in relation to an alleged incident of discrimination that took place 12 years ago. Given the absence of evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal is without the jurisdiction to deal with this Application. It is not necessary, therefore, to address the issue of prejudice.
11I have not dealt with another issue that arises from this Application, which is whether it is an abuse of the Tribunal's process for the applicant to have brought the present Application, given that the same issue was already considered and decided by the Tribunal in Decision 2011 HRTO 2266. However, the applicant needs to understand that if he disagrees with a final determination of the Tribunal, the appropriate step is to request a reconsideration, and not to make a new Application that raises the same issues all over again.
order
12The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 5^th^ day of September, 2014.
"Signed By"
__________________________________
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair