Daniel Martin v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2014 HRTO 916

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Daniel Martin

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and insurance Board

Respondent

-and-

Toronto Workers’ Health and Safety Legal Clinic

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: June 23, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 916

Indexed as: Martin v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

APPEARANCES

Daniel Martin, Applicant

Self-represented

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Respondent

Greg Bullen, Counsel

Toronto Workers’ Health and Safety Legal Clinic, Intervenor

John Bartolomeo, Counsel

1In this Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him because of age and disability contrary to Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant claimed that the respondent discriminated against him when its case manager denied him benefits and that this decision was at least in part based on the applicant’s diabetes and age.

3On March 4, 2014 the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held by teleconference to address the following issues: (1) whether the doctrine of adjudicative immunity may apply to the respondent in the circumstances of this case; (2) whether the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis that it is alleging that the respondent’s case manager misapplied its governing legislation, policies, rules and/or process and or misinterpreted medical documentation; and, (3) whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed.

4A half-day summary hearing was held by teleconference to hear submissions on the identified issues.

Does the doctrine of adjudicative immunity apply to the respondent?

5The Tribunal has determined that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal is protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity, because it is a neutral third party that determines disputes between others. See Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 and Dopelhamer v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2010 HRTO 765. However, it has not found that the respondent itself is immune from Code-related claims. In Dopelhamer the Tribunal specifically concluded that the decisions of the respondent’s case managers do not attract judicial or adjudicative immunity from claims under the Code. For this reason, I am bound to conclude that the respondent is not covered by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

Is the Application outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the basis it is alleging that the respondent misapplied its governing legislation, policies, rules and/or misinterpreted medical documentation?

6In Seberras above the Tribunal held:

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.

7However, in my view, there is an allegation of discrimination under the Code. The applicant is alleging that assumptions were made concerning a medical condition germane to his claim for benefits by a case manager on the basis of his age and diabetes. The applicant alleges that this assumption resulted in a decision adverse to him by the respondent. In my view, if proven, these allegations could result in a finding of a breach of the Code.

8Under these circumstances I cannot find that the Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Should the Application be dismissed, in whole or in part, on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect that it will succeed?

9The question here is whether the applicant has no reasonable prospect of demonstrating that his age and diabetes were factors in the adverse decision made by the respondent’s case manager. The applicant will testify that the respondent’s case manager specifically addressed his age and diabetes in her decision to discontinue his benefits. In my view, proof of these allegations may lead to a finding of discrimination under the Code.

10The respondent has not had an opportunity to respond to the allegations, thus there has been no challenge to the facts as presented by the applicant. It is important that the Tribunal has an opportunity to review the full factual matrix of this case.

11I cannot find at this stage that the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, the Application will proceed. The respondent has 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file its Response.

12I am not seized.