Morrison v. TD Securities, 2014 HRTO 787

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Carey Ann Morrison

Applicant

-and-

TD Securities and Pamela Beauchamp

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: June 3, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 787

Indexed as: Morrison v. TD Securities

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Carey Ann Morrison, Applicant

No one appearing

TD Securities and Pamela Beauchamp, Respondent

Misty Cowieson, Representative

1This is an Application filed on October 20, 2010 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, sex, family status, age, association with a person identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination and reprisal. In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 8, 2014, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing in this matter to determine whether the Application should be dismissed, in whole or part, because it has no reasonable prospect of success.

2On April 22, 2014, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“the Request”) seeking dismissal of the Application because the respondent is part of a federally regulated bank and is therefore outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant did not respond to the Request and the time for doing so has passed.

3As noted above, the respondent submitted that the respondent, TD Securities, is part of TD Bank Group, which is federally regulated. Accordingly, the respondent submitted that the respondent comes with federal jurisdiction and that human rights complaints regarding the respondent should be filed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6. The respondent submitted that the Tribunal should dismiss the Application because it is outside its jurisdiction.

4The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. An application will only be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings in all or in part if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

5The respondent provided little detail about its business, but it appears that it is in the investment/securities industry.

6In Jackson v. BMO Nesbitt Burns, 2011 HRTO 1060, the Tribunal found that the provinces have jurisdiction over the regulation of the investment/securities industry under the "property and civil rights" head of power, pursuant to s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. In Jackson, above, the Tribunal noted that it has found it had jurisdiction to consider an application made against an investment/securities dealer, even though, as in this Application, the firm was wholly-owned by a federally-regulated bank. See also: Rafiq v. Scotia Capital, 2010 HRTO 697.

7In these circumstances, I find that it is not plain and obvious that this Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect to the Application (Rule 13.5).

8The Application shall proceed as directed in the Case Assessment Direction of April 8, 2014.