Morgan v. Ottawa (City), 2008 HRTO 145

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Rosemarie Morgan

Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa (OC Transpo)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: October 10, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 145

Indexed as: Morgan v. Ottawa (City)

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14^th^ Floor

Toronto ON M7A 2A3

Phone (416) 326-1312 / 1-866-598-0322 Fax (416) 326-2199 / 1-866-355-6099

TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168

E-mail hrto.registrar@ontario.ca

Website www.hrto.ca

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

City of Ottawa (OC Transpo), Respondent ) Martin Dolan, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, dated July 23, 2008.

2The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) dated September 9, 2008, which states that the Application should be dismissed because it is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The respondent argues that it is a federal undertaking pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 because its services extend beyond the Ontario border, and that the matters raised in the Application are therefore subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S., 1985, c. H-6, as amended.

3The respondent also filed a Statement of Delivery (Form 23), which states that the Form 10 was delivered to the applicant. The applicant did not file a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 11) by the due date of September 30, 2008.

4Under Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may dismiss an Application that is outside its jurisdiction. In A.T.U., Local 279 v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (1983), 1983 CanLII 1936 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (2d) 560 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 31, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the respondent to this Application was a federal undertaking because it had inter-provincial transit service on a regularly scheduled basis. The respondent claims that it is still a federal undertaking today and that the matters raised in the Application are therefore not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. There is no evidence before me to suggest the contrary. For these reasons, I find that this Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

5The Application is dismissed.