Moshe Fishkin on behalf of David Fishkin v. TD Waterhouse, 2013 HRTO 1097

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Moshe Fishkin on behalf of David Fishkin

Applicant

-and-

TD Waterhouse

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 19, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1097

Indexed as: Fishkin v. TD Waterhouse

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Moshe Fishkin on behalf of ) Self-represented David Fikshin, Applicant )

1This Application was brought under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) by Moshe Fishkin on behalf of his son David Fishkin. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to services, goods and facilities on the basis of disability. The applicant alleges that the services offered by the respondent are not adequately accessible to David Fishkin by virtue of David’s disability.

2On May 14, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) because the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The NOID indicated that it appeared that the respondent may be a federally regulated business or service.

3On May 24, 2013, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal in response to the NOID and provided a copy of a letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) dated April 16, 2013. In the letter, the Commission suggests that the applicant may wish to bring its concerns to the attention of the provincial human rights tribunal. The Commission states that “TD Waterhouse is provincially regulated is [sic] because its day to day operations are security which do not fall under the authority of the federal government”.

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application.

5Based on the information provided by the Commission, it is not plain and obvious that the Application does not come within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

6This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application, nor any indication of the merits of the Application.

Order

7The Tribunal orders as follows:

(i) The Registrar will forward a copy of this Interim Decision together with a Notice of Application and a copy of all materials in the file to the respondent; and

(ii) The respondent is required to file its Response no later than 35 days from the date of this Interim Decision.

8I am not seized of this matter.