HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ekaterina Matachniouk
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Disability Support Program
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Matachniouk v. Ontario Disability Support Program
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ekaterina Mayachniouk, Applicant
Self-represented
1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, disability, family status and marital status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, the applicant alleged that the Ontario Disability Support Program improperly denied her benefits after she reported that she had transferred ownership of her condominium to her son.
2On June 23, 2017, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application on the basis that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In the NOID, the Tribunal advised the applicant that she appeared to be challenging the decision of a decision-maker that refused her a benefit. The Tribunal advised her that it has held that such allegations cannot reasonably be considered a violation of the Code.
3The applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID on July 20, 2017. The applicant took the position that the respondent’s actions were in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”). In particular, the applicant submitted that the respondent’s actions violated her right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment contained in the Charter.
Analysis and Decision
4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
5The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code. To fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, an application must contain allegations that connect a respondent’s conduct to one or more prohibited grounds of discrimination.
6Having reviewed the narrative set out in the Application, I find that it is plain and obvious that there are no allegations made against the respondent that engage the Code. The applicant’s ultimate concern is that the respondent discontinued her ODSP benefits after she advised it that she had transferred ownership of her condominium to her son. The applicant then claimed that this denial of benefits caused an exacerbation of her disability and personal circumstances.
7The Tribunal does not have a general power to remedy claims of unfairness. It also has no authority 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. The Tribunal held as follows in Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115 at para. 5:
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.
See also: Babic v. Ontario Disability Support Plan, 2014 HRTO 219, and Markovik v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2014 HRTO 1065.
8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is to enforce the Code. It does not have the power to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the Charter.
9Due to the Tribunal’s case law cited above, I find that it is plain and obvious that the subject matter of the Application is not conduct prohibited by the Code. Therefore, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
order
10For the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 27th day of July, 2017.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair