Was there a permanent disability? Pension fund administrator didn't think so
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a worker’s discrimination complaint against his benefits provider for rejecting his application for a disability pension, for being outside of its jurisdiction.
The worker was employed with the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). He retired on Nov. 22, 2018, and applied to the OPSEU Trust Fund (OP Trust), the administrator of his union’s pension fund – to which he had contributed during his employment with the LCBO – for a disability pension. He claimed that he had a permanent disability related to chronic pain.
OP Trust considered the worker’s application and requested additional documentation to support his claim for a disability pension. However, it eventually determined that the information the worker had provided wasn’t enough to support entitlement to a disability pension and rejected his application.
Discrimination related to disability pension
The worker filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in relation to employment, contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code, claiming that he was discriminated against when OP Trust denied him a disability pension. He acknowledged that OP Trust wasn’t his employer, but was related to his employment with the LCBO as the administrator of the pension plan to which he contributed during his employment.
However, because OP Trust wasn’t the worker’s employer, the tribunal determined that the application could only proceed under the social area of services, goods, and facilities, not employment.
The tribunal advised the worker that his application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because it seemed to be based on an alleged misapplication of the benefits program rules or misinterpretation of medical information. In addition, the worker didn’t identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the code.
Worker provided medical information on alleged disability
The worker provided medical documents about his alleged disability from a pain management clinic, but he didn’t submit any additional arguments to clarify how his human rights had been violated. The tribunal gave him another opportunity to respond to its request, to which the worker replied that OP Trust was “not accepting my permanent disability. That is how they are discriminating against me.”
The tribunal noted that its jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the code, which prohibits discrimination based on enumerated grounds in protected social areas but doesn’t cover general allegations of unfairness that aren’t related to those protected grounds. It found that the worker’s application challenged the denial of a benefit on the basis that the decision-maker misapplied program rules or misinterpreted medical information, rather than identifying specific acts of discrimination under the code.
The tribunal referred to its decision in Zaki v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 1797, in which it held that the tribunal doesn’t have the power to review decisions under disability-based benefit programs for correctness under the governing legislation, regulations, or policies. Other decisions established that applications related to denial of benefits should be dismissed if there is no allegation of discrimination, said the tribunal.
The tribunal determined that the worker didn’t identify any policies or systemic practices by OP Trust based on disability or other prohibited grounds, so his application didn’t fall within its jurisdiction. It dismissed the worker’s application. See Merrill v. OPSEU Pension Trust Fund (OP Trust), 2025 HRTO 1726.
