William John Connors v. Greg Price, 2009 HRTO 539

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

William John Connors

Applicant

-and-

Greg Price

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: April 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 539

Indexed as: Connors v. Price

1[1] This Application, made under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of “record of offences.” The applicant is an employee of Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. (“Greyhound”). Greg Price, the only named respondent, is a manager at Greyhound. Greyhound filed a Response to the Application on his behalf.

2At the same time as it filed the Response, Greyhound also filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking, among other things, that the Tribunal not deal with the Application as Greyhound is a federally regulated company. It is Greyhound’s position that the applicant’s allegations should properly be dealt with by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The applicant did not file a response to the respondent’s Request.

3The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, as opposed to federal, jurisdiction. Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the Canadian Parliament has jurisdiction over works and undertakings “connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province.” Since Greyhound operates buses that travel between the Provinces, as well as outside the Country, it is a federally regulated undertaking.

4It flows from this that the employment relationship between Greyhound and its employees is also subject to federal regulation. The fact that the applicant named only his supervisor, and not Greyhound, as the respondent to his Application does not take the allegations out of the federal sphere. The alleged facts occurred in the context of the applicant’s employment with Greyhound and the named respondent was an employee of Greyhound.

5For the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal is of the view that it has no jurisdiction over the Application. The Application is therefore dismissed