Debrah Digby v. Trans-Provincial Freight Carriers Ltd. and Andy Spruce, 2010 HRTO 1354

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debrah Digby

Applicant

-and-

Trans-Provincial Freight Carriers Ltd. and Andy Spruce

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: June 15, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1354

Indexed as: Digby v. Trans-Provincial Freight Carriers

1This Decision addresses the respondent’s Request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2The 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 in employment. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application (“Notice”) on February 25, 2010, noting that the Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. The Notice indicated that if the respondents believed that they were governed by federal human rights law and the Code did not apply, because of the nature of the business, they were not required to file a Response but should instead file a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”). The Notice referred to the Tribunal’s decision in Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381.

3On March 10, 2010, the respondents filed a Request, submitting that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction as the organizational respondent is a transportation company that is governed under federal jurisdiction. The applicant did not respond to the Request.

4In an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 944, the Tribunal indicated that it was not able to determine the jurisdiction issue as the respondents simply stated that the organizational respondent is a transportation company governed under federal jurisdiction, but provided no other information or documentation to support their position. The respondents were directed to provide further submissions on the jurisdiction issue and the applicant was given an opportunity to respond.

5The respondents provided submissions indicating that the organizational respondent is based in Ontario but travels to several provinces and U.S. states on a regular basis as a normal course of business. They submit that due to the fact that the company vehicles and employees travel outside Ontario on a regular basis, the company is federally regulated. The applicant did not provide submissions in response and the time for doing so has elapsed.

6Under Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside its jurisdiction. Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction. Based on the respondents’ submissions that the organizational respondent is engaged in transportation extending beyond Ontario, I am satisfied that the organizational respondent is federally regulated and that the Application is, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Soler v. Luckhart Transport, 2009 HRTO 1486, and Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941.

7The Application is dismissed.