Navaratnam v. Toronto Dominion Insurance, 2009 HRTO 230

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Logarajah Navaratnam Applicant

-and-

Toronto Dominion Insurance Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: March 3, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 230

Indexed as: Navaratnam v. Toronto Dominion Insurance

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Logarajah Navaratnam, ) On His Own Behalf Applicant )

Toronto Dominion Insurance, ) Mark Crestohl, Counsel Respondent )

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on November 25, 2008 alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour and disability in employment. The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2008 HRTO 394, requesting submissions from the parties as to whether the Application was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Those submissions have now been received and reviewed.

2The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“the Bank”), which is a federally regulated entity, conducts business through a number of separate operations using different “business styles”. One such style is “TD Insurance” which is the entity that the applicant alleges was his employer.

3The applicant provided a number of employment letters/agreements dated between 2006 and 2008. The other party to these documents is either the Bank (described as the TD Bank Financial Group), TD Canada Trust or TD Life Group. The Tribunal is satisfied that the TD Bank Financial Group, TD Canada Trust and TD Life Group are different business styles used by the Bank to conduct various aspects of the bank's business.

4The respondent provided to the Tribunal a copy of the applicant’s T4 slip for 2008 which was issued by the “TD Bank”.

5It is also noteworthy that the applicant has filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) arising out of the same circumstances as this Application which has been served on the respondent. The respondent advises that it acknowledges that that complaint is properly within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

6It is apparent that the employment relationship between the applicant and respondent is not governed by the Code. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.