David Curtis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 1149

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Curtis

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: August 28, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1149

Indexed as: Curtis v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

1In a Case Assessment Direction dated June 24, 2015, the Tribunal asked the applicant to make submissions about whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the allegations in the Application which was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has provided his submissions and these have been reviewed.

2The submissions are essentially a re-statement of the allegations that the applicant provided in the original Application and later communications. It is apparent that the applicant objects to various decisions that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) has made concerning his entitlement to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997. He also has issues with alleged failures on the part of the WSIB to provide him with various documents, including copies of his WSIB claim file.

3In addition, the applicant objects to various proceedings before the courts which stem from decisions of the WSIB. These include the outcome of proceedings instituted against him by the Crown and by the WSIB, and proceedings that he has initiated.

4It is clear that the applicant believes that he has been treated unfairly. In addition, as a result of the various adjudicative decisions and decisions of the courts, he has suffered financially.

5As explained in the Case Assessment Direction, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider allegations about decisions made by the WSIB about an applicant's entitlement to benefits. As stated in Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 at paragraph. 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. In addition, under s. 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal cannot re-evaluate the substantive or procedural correctness of a decision under another statutory scheme.

6This Tribunal also does not have jurisdiction to supervise proceedings in the courts or decisions of the courts.

7While it is clear that the applicant believes that he has been treated unfairly, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with all allegations of unfairness. For the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, there must be allegations of discrimination on the basis of a ground identified in the Code. In the Application, the applicant identified the grounds of reprisal, disability, age, and creed.

8In his submissions, the applicant clarifies that the allegation of discrimination on the grounds of age relate to difficulties he has as an older worker in finding suitable work. He suggests that the WSIB should do more to help him because of this. In regard to creed, the applicant has clarified that the lack of financial resources makes it harder for him to practice his creed.

9It is apparent that both of these allegations relate to the applicant's disputes with the WSIB about his entitlement to benefits and are not allegations of discrimination against the respondent WSIB because of age or creed.

10The allegations about reprisal relate to the applicant's disputes with the WSIB about his entitlement to benefits and the various proceedings in court. He also suggests that there has been reprisal because of his past involvement with injured worker groups and political organizations. Section 8 of the Code provides:

8. Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

11The allegations of reprisal made by the applicant do not relate to any alleged reprisal for having asserted his Code-protected rights. They relate again to the adjudicative decisions about his entitlement to benefits and the other legal proceedings before the courts. Regarding the allegations of reprisal based on the applicant’s community or political activities, in the absence of some Code-related ground, reprisal because of affiliation with community groups or political organizations is not covered by the Code.

12With respect to the ground of disability, the applicant's allegations do relate to various decisions that have been made about his disability, and in particular about the nature and extent of his disability. However, these are adjudicative decisions which again this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with. The applicant has not identified any allegation of discrimination in regard to decisions or actions that were made or done because of differential treatment because of his disability, contrary to the Code.

13In summary, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application and it is dismissed on that basis.