Sergey Nartnev v. A.S.A.P. Plus Incorporation, 2009 HRTO 2137

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sergey Nartnev

Applicant

• and-

A.S.A.P. Plus Incorporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: December 9, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2137

Indexed as: Nartnev v. A.S.A.P. Plus

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on July 27, 2009, alleging reprisal in his employment with the respondent. The Application also alleged the ground of record of offences. The Application was returned to the applicant more than once as incomplete.

2On November 2, 2009, the Tribunal administratively issued a “Notice of Intent to Dismiss” under Rule 13.2 of its Rules of Procedure, for the following two reasons: (i) the respondent appeared to be a “federally regulated business or service” and (ii) the Application did not appear to allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code and therefore did not appear to raise an issue the Tribunal can resolve. The Tribunal invited the applicant to make written submissions on or before December 2, 2009 regarding these matters. The applicant did not make submissions in response.

3In his Application, the applicant explained that he was employed as a truck driver for the respondent company and made trips to Alberta and middle and western parts of the United States of America. The applicant details his various trips in and outside of Ontario and his allegations with respect to unfair treatment and inadequate payment.

DECISION

4The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this Application.

5The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally regulated businesses. Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, (the “Constitution”), transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction.

6Based on the information contained in the Application, the respondent’s business is freight transport between provinces and countries and the work performed by the applicant involved trucking outside of Ontario. Consequently, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed. The applicant must bring his claim to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Given my conclusion, the Tribunal will not consider the second issue of whether the Application alleges a ground or area of discrimination under the Code.

7The Application is dismissed