Deane v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2009 HRTO 2101

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nadia Deane Applicant

-and-

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: December 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2101 Indexed as: Deane v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on February 10, 2009 in which she alleges discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy, and reprisal or threat of reprisal in the context of her employment with the respondent. The applicant named the respondent as “Canadian Imperial Bank of Canada (CIBC)” which I assume is a reference to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

2On March 9, 2009, the Tribunal issued a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” (“NOID”) under Rule 13.2 of its Rules of Procedure. It indicated that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s power to decide (jurisdiction) on the basis that the respondent appears to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated business or service.

3The Tribunal sought written submissions from the applicant regarding whether or not the Application should be dismissed based upon the information it indicated in the NOID. The applicant did not file written submissions, has not otherwise communicated with the Tribunal, and the time for doing so has now elapsed.

4The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has power to deal with various human rights matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. Under section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over “Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money”. The Code therefore does not apply to banking, including in respect to employment relations between a bank and an employee. Based on the material before me, I find it is therefore plain and obvious that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

5The Application is therefore dismissed.