Hackett v. Reynolds, 2009 HRTO 180

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ricardo Hackett

Applicant

-and-

David Reynolds

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: February 19, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 180

Indexed as: Hackett v. Reynolds

1The applicant filed an Application on July 21, 2008 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment by the respondent. The respondent was the applicant’s supervisor. Although the Application alleges discrimination with respect to conduct in the course of his employment, the applicant does not name his employer, Bell Canada, as a respondent to this Application.

2The Response was prepared by counsel to Bell Canada on behalf of the respondent. In the Response, the respondent indicates that the matter would be best addressed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In an Interim Decision Hackett v. Reynolds, 2008 HRTO 441, the Tribunal advised the respondent to file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) seeking dismissal of the Application. The applicant was advised that he could file submissions in response on or before January 29, 2009.

3Counsel for the respondent filed a Form 10 on January 7, 2009 requesting “an order declaring that the matter should be addressed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.” The applicant did not file submissions in response.

4Where the Tribunal is of the view that the matter over which it does not have jurisdiction, it issues an order dismissing the Application rather than issuing a declaration, as requested by the respondent. Regardless of the form of the order, the issue before the Tribunal is the same: is the subject matter of the Application within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal?

5The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, as opposed to federal, jurisdiction. Pursuant to s. 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Canadian Parliament has jurisdiction over works and undertakings that are “declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada.” Section 5 of the Bell Canada Act, S.C. 1987, c. 19, states:

The works of the Company are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

6Accordingly, Bell Canada is a federally regulated enterprise. Since Bell Canada is subject to federal regulation, the employment relationship between it and its employees is also subject to federal regulation. The fact that the applicant named only his supervisor, and not Bell Canada, as the respondent to his Application does not take the allegations out of the federal sphere. Specifically, the alleged facts occurred in the context of the applicant’s employment with Bell Canada and the named respondent was an employee of Bell Canada.

7For reasons discussed above, the Tribunal is of the view that it has no jurisdiction over the Application. The Application is therefore dismissed.