minicounsel

Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941 — HRTO | minicounsel | minicounsel

November 16, 2009

Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941

Case Summary

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a trucking company. The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federal work or undertaking engaged in interprovincial transportation. The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and that the human rights issues are governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Ontario Human Rights Code. The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

David Rowland

Applicant

-and-

Canada Cartage Systems

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook

Date: November 16, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1941

Indexed as: Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems

[1] The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment.

[2] Following delivery of the Application to the respondent, the Tribunal received a Request for Order during Proceedings from the respondent, requesting that the Application be dismissed in its entirety. The respondent states the Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking, and therefore falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

[3] The applicant did not file submissions in response to the Request.

[4] The respondent states that it is a trucking company whose core business is the transportation of goods across provincial boundaries and internationally. The respondent has provided copies of decisions of adjudicators and referees that have assumed jurisdiction over complaints filed against the respondent under the federal Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2.

[5] Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province are within federal jurisdiction.

[6] There is no evidence before me to suggest that the respondent is not federally regulated.

[7] It is apparent that the human rights issues between the applicant and respondent are not governed by the Code, but rather, by the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.

Dated at Toronto, this 16^th day of November, 2009.

“Signed by”

Brian Cook

Vice-chair