HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Galina Milova Applicant
-and-
YM Inc., Ministry of Economic Development, OPP Queens Park Detachment, Resources of U to T, TD Bank, Sudbury Tax Centre, Service Canada, North York General Hospital, Landlord & Tenant Board and Régie du logement Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: June 10, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 773 Indexed as: Milova v. YM Inc.
APPEARANCES
Galina Milova, Applicant Self-represented
1This Application, which has not yet been served on the respondents, alleges discrimination with respect to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on the basis of family status, marital status, record of offences and gender identity. On May 14, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for various reasons. On May 26, 2015 the applicant filed submissions in response which do not appear to address the issues raised in the NOID. Since that time, the applicant has filed daily submissions with the Tribunal.
2The Application and submissions detail decades of allegations against various respondents. The applicant believes that someone is entering her home and taking confidential information and is impersonating her. The applicant also believes that she has been the victim of an illegal human organ trafficking group. In her Application she has included a number of documents with respect to other legal proceedings, including at the Landlord Tenant Board, the Quebec Régie du lodgement, an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, an action against the Prime Minister, a Notice of Appeal to the Criminal Superior Court of Justice, in which she challenges various orders which have been made against her by the Family Court and a tax assessment appeal.
3The applicant also believes that she has been targeted by a group which has interfered with her opportunity to obtain grants, income and employment. The applicant has also had issues with her immediate family.
FEDERALLY REGULATED ENTITIES
4The Code applies only to human rights matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario. It is clear that the Code does not apply to the federal government itself. Therefore, the Application as against Sudbury Tax Centre and Service Canada is dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these entities.
5The Code only applies to matters which fall within the jurisdiction of Ontario and does not apply to federally regulated businesses. Pursuant to subsection 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money are within federal jurisdiction. The Tribunal has repeatedly determined that it does not have jurisdiction over banks. See for example: Abdul v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2011 HRTO 2323. The Application as against the TD Bank is dismissed on the basis that it is a federal-regulated entity.
RÉGIE DU LOGEMENT
6The Application makes allegations with respect to the fact that there was a proceeding, in the Province of Quebec before the Régie du lodgement. The Code only applies to the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario. The Application as against the Regie du lodgement is dismissed on the basis that it does not fall within the jurisdiction and is not connected to the Province of Ontario.
LANDLORD TENANT BOARD
7The Application also makes allegations as against the LTB and the applicant has attached at least one decision and correspondence with the LTB taking back to 2009 and 2010. There are no allegations in the Application that explain how and when she was discriminated against based on the protected grounds that she has claimed. I find therefore that it is plain and obvious that the subject-matter of Application as against the respondent does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
8Further, it is not the role of the Tribunal to determine appeals of decisions made by other statutory bodies. The Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction to hear Applications with respect to tribunals in the exercise of their judicial functions or decision making based on the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Cartier v. Nairn, 2009 HRTO 2208 ; Hazel v. Ainsworth Engineered Corp., 2009 HRTO 2180. In my view, any complaints with respect to the decision of the LTB and the adjudicator are covered by the doctrine of judicial immunity and fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
THE ALLEGATIONS AS AGAINST THE REMAINING RESPONDENTS
9Having reviewed the applicant’s submissions, she fails to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by any of these entities. It is not the role of the Tribunal to address all allegations of unfairness. Therefore, the Application is dismissed as against the remaining respondents because it has failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.
10The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 10th day of June, 2015.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané Vice-chair