Piernicki v. Hunt, 2009 HRTO 233

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Aleksander Piernicki Applicant

-and-

Jason Hunt Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume Date: March 3, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 233 Indexed as: Piernicki v. Hunt

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code"), on August 13, 2008, alleging discrimination with respect to employment. The respondent, who is a former supervisor of the applicant, filed a Response on October 15, 2008. In their material both parties state that the facts giving rise to the Application occurred when they were employed by a transportation company called Trans-Frt. McNamara Inc. The applicant did not file an application alleging an infringement of the Code against the company, his former employer.

2The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2008 HRTO 235, directing that Trans-Frt. McNamara Inc. receive notice of the proceeding as a potentially affected party. The Interim Decision also directed the parties and Trans-Frt. McNamara Inc. to file submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

3In a letter to the Tribunal dated November 24, 2008, the President of Trans-Frt. McNamara Inc., states that the company is involved in transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province of Ontario and is therefore federally regulated pursuant to subsection 92(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

4The Application was not filed against Trans-Frt. McNamara Inc. and the applicant indicates that he has no interest in pursuing a remedy against the organization. The applicant takes the position that in these circumstances, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the complaint against the applicant's former supervisor notwithstanding the fact the former employer of both the applicant and the respondent is federally regulated.

5However, the facts giving rise to the Application occurred when both the applicant and the respondent were employees of Trans-Frt. McNamara Inc. and the respondent contends that he was acting appropriately and within the scope of his employment. In his Response, the respondent includes a number of company policies which relate to his defence. In the Application, the applicant raises concerns about the conduct of other employees who he describes as engaging in discriminatory conduct, having taken their cue from the respondent's alleged conduct. The overall context for the complaint is therefore the employment relationship between the applicant and the respondent during the period where they were both working for a federally regulated employer.

6For those reasons, the Tribunal is of the view that it has no jurisdiction over the Application. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.