Szatmari v. Social Benefits Tribunal, 2015 HRTO 549

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexandru Szatmari

Applicant

-and-

Social Benefits Tribunal, Scotiabank Yorkdale Mall, Canada Pension and Canada Revenue Agency

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: April 30, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 549 Indexed as: Szatmari v. Social Benefits Tribunal

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexandru Szatmari, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of ethnic origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application was filed on December 8, 2014. The applicant also enclosed over 100 pages of documents from the named respondents, including a decision from the Social Benefits Tribunal (“SBT”) from November 2011, as well as documentation pertaining to other organizations or institutions, and documentation that was not written in either English or French. The Application is not very cohesive, but it appears to raise different issues against different respondents. The applicant states that English is his second language.

2With respect to the STB, the applicant takes issue with an Ontario Disability Support Payment (“ODSP”) overpayment that was triggered because of payments the applicant receives from other countries, the manner in which this was calculated and his efforts to challenge the overpayment, including a decision by the SBT from November 2011 upholding the overpayment.

3With respect to the Scotiabank Yorkdale Mall (“Scotiabank”) (the Yorkdale Mall appears to the branch with which the applicant was addressing his issues), the applicant takes issue with the time and manner with which Scotiabank handled his assets. It is difficult to ascertain, but allegations against Scotiabank may pertain to the ODSP overpayment as well.

4With respect to Canada Revenue Agency, the applicant appears to have concerns with his tax assessment and possibly its dealings with his ODSP overpayment.

5With respect to the Canada Pension, he appears to take issue with amounts he is receiving from it and how those amounts were calculated.

6The Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss dated March 19, 2015 (“the NOID”). In the NOID, the Tribunal explained that the Application may be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as against the SBT because the Application was filed more than a year after the last incident of discrimination, and because they appeared to arise in the context of an adjudicative process. The NOID further explained that the Tribunal has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals based on the execution of adjudicative duties or decision-making because of the doctrine of judicial or adjudicative immunity and that any delay in filing an Application beyond the one year limitation period required a good faith explanation about the delay.

7With respect to the Scotiabank Yorkdale Mall, Canada Pension and Canada Revenue Agency, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it appeared that the Application was outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for those respondents because they appeared to be a federal government department, or a federally regulated service provider.

8The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to issues identified in the NOID. The applicant sent in an email dated April 14, 2015 which sets out the jurisdictional questions to which he was asked to respond, but fails to provide any meaningful response to them. The applicant poses a number of questions about filing an application at the federal level, including who would pay for his travel costs and representing himself.

analysis

9At this preliminary stage, the Tribunal can only dismiss an Application where it is “plain and obvious” that it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

10For the reasons set out below, the Application does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and accordingly it is dismissed.

Allegations Against the Social Benefits Tribunal

11In this situation, the applicant indicates that he is “not satisfied” with the decision issued by the SBT, a copy of which he enclosed with his Application. The SBT upheld the ODSP overpayment.

12In Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115, the Tribunal emphasised that it is not the role of the Tribunal to sit in review of the decisions of other adjudicative bodies because to do so would usurp the function of the Divisional Court. This principle has been followed in other Tribunal decisions where an applicant files an application against the respondent with respect to decisions or orders that its members have issued. See, for example, Brooks v. Social Benefits Tribunal of Ontario, 2014 HRTO 1708.

13The allegations against the SBT as it pertains to the November 2011 decision are dismissed upon the principle of judicial or adjudicative immunity.

14To the extent that there are remaining allegations about the SBT, in relation to challenging the November 2011 decision, those are dismissed because on the basis of delay.

15Section 34(1) of the Code contains a mandatory limitation period which requires an applicant to file an Application within one year of the last incident upon which an application is based. Section 34(2) gives the Tribunal the discretion to allow an untimely application to proceed where the applicant has a good faith reason for the delay.

16The applicant has not provided any reasons for his delay in filing his Application against SBT either in his Application or in response to the NOID.

17Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as against SBT.

Allegations Against Scotiabank Yorkdale Mall

18Pursuant to subsection 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, banking falls within federal jurisdiction, rather than provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the Code does not apply to banks.

19In previous cases involving the same bank, the Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction over the Application. See: Gill v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2009 HRTO 1106; Abramova v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2010 HRTO 660; and Longtin v. Scotiabank, 2010 HRTO 873.

20Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the allegations as against Scotiabank, and the Application is dismissed against it.

Allegations Against Canada Pension and Canada Revenue Agency

21The Canada Pension plan is established under the federal legislation called Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, C. c-8. Canada Revenue Agency is established under the federal Ministry of National Revenue.

22An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Code only applies to matters that come within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally-regulated enterprises or undertakings. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has the power to deal with human rights matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. In my view, it is plain and obvious that Canada Pension and Canada Revenue Agency are departments or agencies of the federal government that are subject to federal jurisdiction.

23Accordingly, it is plain and obvious that this Application as against Canada Pension and Canada Revenue Agency is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

24The Application is dismissed in its entirety.