Feeney v. Ryder Logistics, 2009 HRTO 2099

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Laura Feeney

Applicant

-and-

Ryder Logistics, Maher El-Siblini, Dave Lavender and Joe Iannelli

Respondents

INTERIM decision

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: December 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2099 Indexed as: Feeney v. Ryder Logistics

1This Interim Decision deals with a Request by the respondents that an Application be dismissed on the grounds that the organizational respondent is federally regulated and not subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the “Code”).

2The Application was filed under section 34 of the Code and alleges discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of sex, marital status and reprisal.

3The Application was delivered to the respondents, who filed a Request for Order During Proceedings, asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application on the grounds that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with it. The respondents have provided minimal information in support of the Request but have indicated that the organizational respondent is “a third party logistics company providing transportation and logistics to a variety of clients, all of which are either Provincially or Federally Regulated.” The Response further indicates that the “account this claim represents” involves cross border transportation and is accordingly federally regulated.

4The respondents have not provided sufficient information to allow the Tribunal to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this Application or whether the allegations fall under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S., 1985, c. H-6 and are properly brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

5The respondents are directed to provide written submissions in support of their Request for Order. The submissions should provide sufficient information to allow the Tribunal to understand the structure of the business, what aspects may be federally regulated, and why the respondents believe that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application. The submissions should also address the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Consolidated Fastfrate Inc. v. Western Canada Council of Teamsters, 2009 SCC 53.

6The respondents shall file their submissions with the Tribunal and provide a copy to the applicant by December 16, 2009.

7The applicant has the right to file submissions as well, but she is not required to do so. Any submissions from the applicant must be delivered to the respondents and filed with the Tribunal by January 4, 2010.

8The Tribunal will determine how to proceed with this Application, including whether to hear oral submissions of the parties after the written submissions have been received.

9The applicant may wish to consult the Applicant’s Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website or from the Registrar’s office. Pages 2 – 3 of the Guide set out sources of assistance that may be available to her. Tribunal decisions are available on the website at www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt. Decisions of the Supreme Court, including the Fastfrate decision mentioned above, are also available from the website.

10I am not seized of this matter.