Naraine v. Tangerine Bank, 2015 HRTO 217

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mala Naraine

Applicant

-and-

Tangerine Bank

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: February 18, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 217 Indexed as: Naraine v. Tangerine Bank

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mala Naraine, Applicant Self-represented

Tangerine Bank, Respondent Julie-Anne Cardinal, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application was filed on September 23, 2014 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2By letter dated November 28, 2014, the Tribunal advised the applicant that the respondent requested dismissal of the Application on the basis that the issues in dispute are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The applicant was advised to provide written submissions on the dismissal request by December 12, 2014.

3On December 4, 2014, the respondent advised the Tribunal that the applicant had filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the same basis, facts and issues as those raised in her Application to the Tribunal.

4On December 11, 2014, the applicant asked the Tribunal to defer her Application until the issue of jurisdiction is clarified by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The applicant did not provide submissions on the question of whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction.

5The respondent opposes the applicant’s deferral request.

6The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has the authority to deal with various human rights matters that fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Under section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over “Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money”. The respondent, formerly called ING Bank of Canada, is a Schedule 1 Bank pursuant to the Bank Act, S.C. 1991, c. 46. As a result, the respondent is under federal jurisdiction.

7The Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and as such, it has no jurisdiction to defer the Application.

8The Application is dismissed.