Grant v. Enterprise Air, 2010 HRTO 11

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Grant

Applicant

-and-

Enterprise Air Inc. / ALCI Aviation, Brian Burchartz and Manuel Rosario

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: January 5, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 11

Indexed as: Grant v. Enterprise Air

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the "Code") alleging discrimination on the basis of age in employment. The applicant, who is a pilot, alleges that his employment was improperly terminated.

2On November 9, 2009, the Tribunal issued a letter granting an extension of time to the applicant in which to file his Reply and seeking submissions from the parties concerning whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application as the respondent "appears to be a federal government department, agency or federally regulated business or service."

3The applicant was advised he could make his submissions on jurisdiction in his Reply; he failed, however, to address issue of jurisdiction in his Reply submitted the following month. The respondents filed written submissions in which they took the position that the organizational respondent is a federally regulated business. The applicant did not file written submissions in response.

4The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has power to deal with various human rights matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. The question then is, whether the organizational respondent is a federal or a provincial undertaking.

5Section 2 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, offers the following definition:

"federal work, undertaking or business" means any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

...

e) aerodromes, aircraft or a line of air transportation

6The organizational respondent is an airline and, therefore, a "federal work, undertaking or business." Although the applicant names two individual respondents in his Application, he makes no separate allegations against them. In any event, the two individuals appear to be employees and/or principals of the organizational respondent so that any actions taken by them would be within the context of the applicant's employment and, therefore, also subject to federal regulation.

7For the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Application. The Application is therefore dismissed