HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Haskins

Applicant

-and-

The Religious Hospitallers of Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London operating as Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital, EMS – Essex Windsor and Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC

Respondents

-and-

Windsor Police Services

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Eric Whist

Date: August 6, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1223

Indexed as: Haskins v. Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital

[1] This Interim Decision addresses the two issues: whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide this Application as against the respondent Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC (“Tunnel”) and a request by the Windsor Police Services (“Police”) to intervene. The style of cause is corrected to reflect the correct legal name of the Tunnel.

[2] The Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, disability and association with a person identified by a ground under the Code.

[3] The applicant alleges that after she was involved in a verbal exchange with a Tunnel employee, (who the applicant identified as a security guard), the Tunnel employee contacted the local emergency medical services, Essex-Windsor EMS, who then took the applicant by ambulance to Hotel Dieu-Grace Hospital where the applicant alleges she was inappropriately treated. The applicant’s central contention is that all three respondents, the Tunnel, Essex Windsor and Hotel-Dieu Hospital, demeaned her and treated her in an undignified manner based on a perceived disability.

[4] The Tunnel asks that the Application be dismissed as against it, pursuant to Rule 13, as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It states that it is a federal work or undertaking extending beyond the limits of the province pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and that, accordingly, the Ontario Code does not apply. The implication of its argument is that the applicant’s allegations against the Tunnel must be filed as a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The applicant, in response, suggests that the Tribunal can apply various treaties and international instruments, which are incorporated into the Code, and that it therefore does have jurisdiction over this aspect of her Application. She also relies upon the Occupier’s Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.2.

[5] I agree with the Tunnel’s arguments. The Tunnel, which connects Canada and the United States, extends beyond the borders of the province, and there is no argument made for the Code’s application to its security services. Accordingly, I find that the aspects of the Application against Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC fall under federal, not provincial, jurisdiction as a result of the division of powers in Canada’s constitution. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enforce international law or other provincial statutes such as the Occupier’s Liability Act. As the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this aspect of the Application, it is dismissed as against Detroit Windsor Tunnel LLC.

[6] The Police’s interest in intervening is based on the fact that they may have been involved in the incident in which the Essex-Windsor EMS was called and the decision was made that the applicant would be taken to hospital. The applicant has not taken a position in response to this Request.

[7] I am satisfied that the Police have an interest in the issues raised by the Application. The Request to Intervene is granted. The extent and nature of the Police’s participation will be determined by the Vice-chair assigned to hear the Application.

[8] I am not seized of this matter.

Dated at Toronto, this 6^th^ day of August, 2009.

“Signed by”

Eric Whist

Vice-chair