Shaikh v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., 2008 HRTO 279

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Yusuf Shaikh Applicant

-and-

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: November 18, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 279 Indexed as: Shaikh v. United Parcel Service

Written Submissions By: United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., Respondent (Andrea York, Counsel)

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 14, 2008, alleging discrimination in his employment with the respondent. Following a Tribunal initiated Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, the Tribunal determined that it would continue to deal with the application: Shaikh v. United Parcel Service, 2008 HRTO 67. It noted that this was not a final decision on the issue of jurisdiction.

2Following delivery of the Application to the respondent (“UPS”), it filed a Request for Order during Proceedings requesting that the Application be dismissed in its entirety. The respondent’s name in the style of cause is hereby amended to reflect its name as indicated by the respondent.

3UPS argues that the Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking, and “falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission”. The applicant did not file submissions in response to the Request.

4Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province are within federal jurisdiction. In United Parcel Service v. Thibodeau, 2005 FC 608 at para. 4, the Federal Court noted that UPS is subject to the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, which governs labour and employment relationships of federal undertakings. UPS states that it is a courier company whose core business is the transportation of goods across provincial boundaries and internationally. It notes that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has taken jurisdiction over complaints against UPS. There is no evidence before me to suggest the contrary.

5It is apparent that the employment relationship between the applicant and respondent is not governed by the Code. Accordingly, the application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.