HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sangar Asaippillai
Applicant
-and-
Royal Bank of Canada
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Eli Fellman
Indexed as: Asaippillai v. Royal Bank of Canada
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sangar Asaippillai, Applicant
Self-represented
1This Application was filed on March 6, 2015. The applicant alleges that his employer, the Royal Bank of Canada, discriminated against him on October 23, 2013 by initially refusing to grant him a vacation request in order to participate in a religious ritual in his country of origin. The applicant alleges that his vacation request was eventually approved, but he was then punished by his manager by having his salary reduced by 50 percent.
2On March 17, 2015, the Registrar issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application. The Notice directed the applicant to respond to the following issues by April 16, 2015:
the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in your Application and you do not appear to have cited facts that constitute “good faith” within the meaning of the HRTO’s case law [s.34(1)]. See for example Thomas v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2009 HRTO 1582 and see for example Diler v. Cambridge Memorial Hospital, 2010 HRTO 1224 for a discussion of “good faith”; and
the respondent appears to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated employer or service provider. See for example Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
3The applicant responded on April 1, 2015. However, his submission did not address the two issues described above. Therefore, the Registrar wrote to the applicant again on April 21, 2015 advising him that he must respond to the jurisdictional issues set out in the March 17, 2015 notice by May 5, 2015. The applicant was also advised that he may be able to receive free legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.
4The applicant replied on May 5, 2015. This submission repeats the allegations contained in the Application, but does not address the two jurisdictional issues set out in the March 17, 2015 notice.
5The Tribunal may dismiss an Application without providing an opportunity for an oral hearing if the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application. However, an application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondent, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See, for example, Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.
6The Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “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, regardless of where they may be located.
7The Tribunal has considered a number of previous applications naming this same respondent and has consistently found that that the Code does not apply, meaning the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to consider the applications. See, for example, Strutt v. RBC Royal Bank, 2011 HRTO 1794 and Moss v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2010 HRTO 15.
8As stated in the March 17, 2015 notice, the Application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination described in the Application.
9Section 34 of the Code states, in part:
(1) If a person believes that any of his or her rights under Part I have been infringed, the person may apply to the Tribunal for an order under section 45.2
(a) within one year after the incident to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of incidents, within one year after the last incident in the series.
(2) A person may apply under subsection (1) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.
10In this case, the Application was filed on March 6, 2015. The narrative in the Application alleges that in October 2013 the respondent initially refused to grant him a vacation request in order to participate in a religious ritual in his country of origin, and then reduced his salary after his vacation request was approved by another manager. It is plain and obvious that the Application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, and the applicant has not established that the delay was incurred in good faith.
ORDER
11It is plain and obvious that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application and it is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of May, 2015.
“Signed by”
Eli Fellman
Vice-chair