Hicks v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2015 HRTO 746

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Gregory Hicks

Applicant

-and-

Royal Bank of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: June 8, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 746 Indexed as: Hicks v. Royal Bank of Canada

1This Application was filed on March 24, 2015. The applicant alleges discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of disability and marital status.

2On April 21, 2015, the Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (NOID). The NOID directed the applicant to respond to the following issues by May 21, 2015:

• 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.
• a review of the Application and the narrative setting out the incidents of alleged discrimination fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code allegedly committed by the respondent(s). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness unless the unfairness is connected, in whole or in part, to one of the grounds specifically set out in Part I of the Code (e.g. race, disability, sex, etc.); see, for example, Forde v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2011 HRTO 1389).

3The applicant has not responded to the Notice and the date for doing so has now passed.

4The 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. Masood, above.

5The 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.

6The 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. It is plain and obvious that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this Application.

ORDER

7The Application is dismissed.