minicounsel

Nacon Dioba v. BMO (Bank of Montreal), 2009 HRTO 686 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

May 26, 2009

Nacon Dioba v. BMO (Bank of Montreal), 2009 HRTO 686

Case Summary

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against a bank for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant alleged that the Canadian Human Rights Commission refused to accept his complaint on the basis that the bank's customer service is managed by a privately owned corporation. The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the applicant provided no evidence of the Commission's refusal and no reason to doubt that the matter relates to banking under federal jurisdiction.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Nacon Dioba

Applicant

-and-

BMO (Bank of Montreal)

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: May 26, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 686

Indexed as: Dioba v. BMO (Bank of Montreal)

[1] The applicant requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Decision dated November 28, 2008, [2008 HRTO 325](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2008/325), which dismissed the Application on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over it as it relates to banking. The Application alleged discrimination in his treatment at a branch of the respondent Bank with regard to a request for overdraft protection. The applicant submits that the Decision is in conflict with established case law or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance.

[2] The applicant states that since the Tribunal’s decision, he has submitted the Application to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) five times, but the CHRC has refused to accept it on the basis “that the BMO is managed by Nesbitt Burns Group that is [a[ privately own[ed] corporation”. He states that the Nesbitt Burns group is responsible for the customer service issues at BMO.

[3] The applicant has not made the Request for Reconsideration within the 30-day time period set out in Rule 26 of the Tribunal Rules. A decision by the CHRC that it did not have jurisdiction might well be grounds for an extension of this time period. However, the applicant has provided no decision or correspondence from the CHRC confirming his allegation that it would not accept a complaint on jurisdictional grounds, nor any provided any reason to doubt the conclusion that the Application relates to “banking” as defined in s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[4] As there are no grounds to believe that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this Application, the Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 26^th^ day of May, 2009.

“Signed by”

David A. Wright

Vice-chair