Leonard Kerrigan v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2015 HRTO 854

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Leonard Kerrigan

Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: June 25, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 854 Indexed as: Kerrigan v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Leonard Kerrigan, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1In his Application, the applicant alleged that he experienced discrimination on the basis of disability in relation to the services provided by the respondent contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The applicant alleges that he has been mistreated by the respondent going back as far as 1976. Some of the examples of mistreatment he refers to include: attacks on his character; biased and incorrect decisions; missing cheques and cheques that have not been printed; inaccurate medical decisions; and the failure of adjudicators to adhere to policies.

3On March 27, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application ("NOID") because it appeared to be outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Specifically, the NOID indicated that the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination in the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

4In the NOID, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions regarding these jurisdictional issues. The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal and reiterating his allegations.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

5At this preliminary stage in the proceeding, the Tribunal will dismiss an application only if it is "plain and obvious" that it is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over cases of general unfairness that are unconnected to a ground protected under the Code. What the applicant alleges are incidents which, if they are true, could be described in general terms as unfair. The applicant certainly has a perception that he was treated unfairly and he equates this with a violation of his rights under the Code. However it is plain and obvious that the allegations the applicant made against the respondent have no connection to any protected ground under the Code. The applicant has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

ORDER

7For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.