HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ashley Kennedy

Applicant

-and-

Purolator Courier Ltd. and Chad Miller

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte Date: November 24, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2003 Indexed as: Kennedy v. Purolator Courier

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on August 28, 2009, alleging discrimination in her employment with the corporate respondent. Counsel for the respondent provided correspondence to the Tribunal dated October 5, 2009, which stated that the respondent is federally regulated and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application.

2On October 8, 2009, the Tribunal 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 was invited to make written submissions relating to the issue of whether the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide. The applicant made no submissions by the deadline provided by the Tribunal.

3Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province are within federal jurisdiction. In a case dealing with another national courier company, United Parcel Service of Canada v. Thibodeau, 2005 FC 608 at para. 4, the Federal Court noted that United Parcel Service is subject to the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, which governs labour and employment relationships of federal undertakings.

4The Supreme Court of Canada, in RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC), [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, noted that the labour relations of Purolator are within federal jurisdiction and governed by the Canada Labour Code.

5There is no evidence before me to suggest that the corporate respondent is not federally regulated.

6For these reasons, I find that the respondent is a federally regulated entity and therefore this Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Application is dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of November, 2009.