Rajiv Bhushan v. Mathew Tim, 2009 HRTO 361

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rajiv Bhushan

Applicant

-and-

Mathew Tim

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: March 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 361

Indexed as: Bhushan v. Tim

1This is an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a number of grounds including race, colour, family status, marital status, and age, as well as reprisal. This Decision addresses the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over this Application.

2The Application was filed on February 17, 2009. The applicant alleges that the respondent made certain threatening gestures to him while he was at or in the vicinity of the GO Train platform at Union Station and Langstaff GO station. The applicant states that he “believe[s] the reason for these events is because of the issues which arose during my employment with CIBC”.

3Based on the Tribunal’s initial review, pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rule 13.2, the Tribunal did not send the Application to the respondent and instead issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application. In the Notice, the Tribunal stated as follows:

The Tribunal has reviewed your Application. It appears the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because:

• the allegations against the Respondent appear to be related to co-workers when both the Respondent and Applicant were employed with a federally regulated business or service.

You may wish to review the provisions of the Human Rights Code noted above as well as the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Guides to its processes, all available on the Tribunal’s website at www.hrto.ca, before responding to this Notice.

You may make written submissions explaining why you believe the Application is in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and should be decided by the Tribunal.

4On March 19, 2009, the applicant filed submissions. In his submissions, the applicant concedes that the issues started while he was employed at CIBC and that the period up to February 5, 2008 would be in the jurisdiction of the “Federal Human Rights Commission”. However, he clarifies that his Application relates to events from February 6, 2008, a period when he has not been employed at the CIBC and therefore not a co-worker of the respondent. The applicant further states that in the period since February 6, 2008 he has been an employee of the Ontario Public Service and that the incidents in question took place on property owned by GO Transit, a crown agency of the Province of Ontario.

5I find that the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is based on the Code, which prohibits discrimination in the areas of accommodation, services, goods and facilities, and employment on the basis of grounds listed in the Code. In the area of employment, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to provincially regulated employers.

7The applicant has framed his Application on the basis that he has been discriminated against in respect of employment. The only link between the allegations in the Application and employment appear to relate to the applicant’s former employment at CIBC and a former co-worker from the CIBC (which I have taken to be referring to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and thus a federally regulated employer, a point conceded by the applicant). The only “employment” which is in any way connected to the allegations is covered by federal and not provincial law, and the fact that the allegations occurred after the applicant left his employ with the CIBC do not alter this. The applicant’s employment with the Ontario Public Service in the period after he left CIBC is not related in any way to the allegations set out in the Application. Accordingly, to the extent the Application alleges that he has been discriminated against in employment, I find it is plain and obvious that the “employment” falls within federal jurisdiction and not the Code.

8Finally, the fact that the events may have occurred on property owned by GO Transit do not bring this matter within provincial jurisdiction, where the Application rests on allegations of employment-related discrimination which I have found to be governed by federal and not provincial law.

9I therefore find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this Application. [10] Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.