Bradford v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2016 HRTO 172

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Garrick Bradford Applicant

-and-

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Jon Hendrick, Garry Andress, Amanda Farquharson, Christie Mitchell Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: February 5, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 172 Indexed as: Bradford v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

APPEARANCES

Garrick Bradford, Applicant Self-represented

Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, Jon Henddrick, Garry Andress, Amanda Farquharson, Christie Mitchell, Respondents Greg Bullen, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability and age. It was filed on March 19, 2015.

2The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing (Form 26) asking for the following relief:

1. Dismissal of the Application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success;
2. Dismissal of a portion of the Application for delay; and
3. Removal of the individual respondents.

3By Case Assessment Direction dated October 8, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held on the three issues raised by the respondents.

4For the reasons set out below, I find that there is no reasonable prospect that the Application could succeed. In light of this finding, it is not necessary to address the respondents’ request to dismiss the Application for delay or their request to remove the individual respondents.

Decision and analysis

5The applicant was injured on the job in March 2011 and has been on benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act since. These benefits have varied over the years depending on the circumstances of the applicant and the interpretation of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (“WSIB”) policies by the respondents. For example, the applicant returned to his accident employer for a period of time, but was laid off. More recently, he was in the Workplace Transition program, and following his retraining, started work as a security guard. Each change in status resulted in a change of benefits.

6It would be an understatement to say that the applicant is unhappy with the service he has received from the WSIB. The concerns he has brought to this Tribunal in his Application seem to revolve around the following three issues: (1) the decision to categorize his work with the accident employer as “seasonal,” with the resulting decrease in benefits; (2) the decision to reduce his benefits by the projected amount he would earn as a full-time security guard working 40 hours a week, regardless of the actual hours he works; and (3) his belief that the WSIB acted in concert with his most recent employer, resulting in the termination of his job during his period of probation.

7In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 (“Seberras”), a panel of the Tribunal held as follows:

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 reevaluate the substantive or procedural correctness of a decision under another statutory scheme.

8Much of the applicant’s dispute with the respondents is based on the very thing Sebarras says is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction – namely, the alleged misapplication and misinterpretation of the legislation and policies governing the WSIB. There are appeal routes for this, and it would appear that the applicant has availed himself of them, at least with respect to the determination that he was a seasonal employee.

9However, the applicant also alleges that the respondents have taken advantage of him because he is someone with a brain injury, who has reduced cognitive functioning. Beyond, baldy stating this proposition, he offered no examples of how he might establish that this is the case. The applicant has shown he is more than ready to take on the system. In addition to the appeals he has filed with respect to the WSIB decision to declare him to be a seasonal employee (at the outset of which, he was represented by the union’s paralegal, Stan Grey), the applicant advised the Tribunal that he has filed other applications to the Tribunal with respect to his accident employer and the most recent employer.

10Neither the applicant’s written submission nor his oral submissions address the link between the treatment he received and his age. This link is not made on the face of the applicant’s allegations in his pleadings.

11Finally, with respect to allegation about collusion between the respondents and his probationary employer (and/or interference by the respondents) leading to the loss of his job, the applicant has failed to show how he might demonstrate that this alleged conduct was in any way linked to one of the grounds under the Code.

12In the absence of any proposed evidence which might prove a link between the grounds of disability or age and the allegations set out in his Application, this Application has no reasonable prospect of success.

order

13The Application is dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.