Yusuf Shaikh v. United Parcel Service, 2008 HRTO 67

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yusuf Shaikh

Applicant

-and-

United Parcel Service

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright

Date: September 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 HRTO 67

Indexed as: Shaikh v. United Parcel Service

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14^th Floor

Toronto ON M7A 2C7

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

Yusuf Shaikh, Applicant ) On his own behalf

1The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on July 14, 2008, alleging discrimination in his employment with the respondent. On July 28, 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 appears to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated business or service”. The applicant made written submissions arguing that the matter should not be dismissed.

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.

3Although I appreciate that there may 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.

4The application indicates that the applicant is represented by a union, Teamsters Local 927 (the “Union”). The applicant states that he “tried with my union”, although it is not clear whether a grievance was filed. The Registrar is directed to serve the application on the Union, as well as the respondent. If a grievance has been filed, the parties should provide the Tribunal with a copy and the Tribunal may issue a Notice of Intent to Defer.

5This is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of this application. I am not seized of this matter.