Gordon Rubinoff v. Floyd Sinton Transportation Ltd., 2008 HRTO 319

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Gordon Rubinoff Applicant

-and-

Floyd Sinton Transportation Ltd. Respondent

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: November 27, 2008 Citation: 2008 HRTO 319 Indexed as: Rubinoff v. Floyd Sinton Transportation

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. On August 1, 2008, the Tribunal administratively issued a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” under Rule 13.2 of its Rules of Procedure, for the reason that the respondent appeared to be a “federally regulated business or service”. The applicant did not make submissions in response.

2A dismissal under Rule 13 occurs before an application is served on a respondent, and a decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision on the issue of jurisdiction. When there is a potential issue relating to whether a matter falls under provincial or federal jurisdiction the Tribunal will only dismiss the application if it is plain and obvious that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction: Morin v. Alliance de la function publique du Canada, 2008 HRTO 58; Hotte v. Ontario (Finance), 2008 HRTO 63.

3The respondent appears to be engaged in charters of various types of passenger vehicles. The Application does not make clear where such charters travel. Although I appreciate that there may perhaps be an issue of whether the respondent is engaged in interprovincial transportation, it is not plain and obvious on the face of this Application that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal will continue to deal with the Application.

4This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this Application. I am not seized of this matter.