Sardinha v. Bell Canada, 2009 HRTO 64

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marie Sardinha

Applicant

-and-

Bell Canada, Rogers Cable, Mississauga Hydro, Toronto Hydro, State Farm Insurance, State Farm Electrical, The Bank of Nova Scotia, aol.ca and aol.com

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judith Keene

Date: January 21, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 64

Indexed as: Sardinha v. Bell Canada

1This Application was filed on September 11, 2008, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application makes numerous allegations against a number of respondents. This decision is about whether the Tribunal has any jurisdiction over the matters raised in the Application.

2The Application named Bell Canada, Rogers Cable, Mississauga Hydro, Toronto Hydro, State Farm Insurance, State Farm Electrical, the Bank of Nova Scotia, aol.ca and aol.com as respondents. The narrative included in the Application also made allegations about the RCMP and the CBC.

3On October 30 2008, the Registrar sent a letter requesting that the applicant send written submissions directed to six specific questions that were relevant to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with her Application.

4The applicant’s submissions were received on December 5, 2008. The applicant did not respond to most of the questions set out in the Registrar’s letter. Her submissions were largely concerned with alleged government corruption and drug trafficking, as well as high frequency noise over her telephone line and interference with her television service. She also indicated that one of the financial institutions broke a contract and was involved in an attempt to kill her.

5The applicant did not address the issue of federal jurisdiction over some of the identified respondents. Neither the Application nor the applicant’s submissions suggest a nexus between the applicant’s allegations and any of the grounds identified in the Code, nor did the applicant identify an action on the part of any respondent within provincial jurisdiction that would implicate any of the Code’s provisions.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, employment, contracts and membership in vocational associations, on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness or wrongdoing outside those areas or grounds.

7I find that the Application does not raise matters which the Tribunal has the power to decide. Accordingly, I dismiss the Application.