Hana Abdul v. Royal Bank of Canada and Susan Tersigni, 2011 HRTO 2323

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Hana Abdul Applicant

-and-

Royal Bank of Canada and Susan Tersigni Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner Date: December 29, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 2323 Indexed as: Abdul v. Royal Bank of Canada

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 October 11, 2011, in which she alleges discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin in services. The corporate respondent is a bank. The personal respondent is a senior manager of operations in the Student Loans Department. The only apparent reason that the applicant named her as a respondent is that she signed the correspondence from the bank to the applicant requesting that she repay her loan.

2On October 21, 2011, the Tribunal issued a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” (“the NOID”) under Rule 13.2 of its Rules of Procedure. It indicated that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s powers to decide (jurisdiction) because “the respondents appear to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated business or service…”

3The Tribunal sought written submissions from the applicant regarding why she believed the Application was within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant provided them but they are filled with questions and admissions such as “The Applicant does not know the Respondents relationship to the federal government” or “The Applicant does not know if the language groups reflected in the Respondents [sic] bank machines are employees [sic] of the federal government.”

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 s. 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 banks. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

5On December 21, 2011, the applicant filed with the Tribunal a letter from her to the respondent. In her letter, she asks the respondent to note that she is adding “Allied Consulting (or perhaps it is Allied International as an additional Respondent to this HRTO file.” The applicant has not filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking to add an additional respondent. Moreover, there are no allegations in the Application that mention an “Allied Consulting” or “Allied International”, nor any indication of any entity other than the Royal Bank of Canada being involved in the allegations. In addition, on December 23, 2011, in Abdul v. University of Toronto, 2011 HRTO 2299, the Tribunal declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant. In all the circumstances, the applicant may not seek to add any parties to this Application.

6If she wishes to pursue her rights under the Code against the “Allied” entity to which she refers in her letter above, or against any party in any matter, then she must comply with the direction in the above Decision which declared the applicant to be a vexatious litigant.

7For all the above reasons, the Application is dismissed