HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Katherine Craig
Applicant
- and-
Brinks Canada Limited and Great West Life-Scarborough Disability Office
Respondents
-and-
CAW Canada Local 4266
Intervener
Interim Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Craig v. Brinks Canada
1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code") on May 5, 2010, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex with respect to employment. The applicant alleges that her employer, Brinks Canada Limited ("Brinks"), discriminated against her because she was pregnant and failed to provide her with accommodation. The applicant further alleges that Great West Life Assurance Company ("GWL") discriminatorily denied her insurance benefits because she was unable to undergo x-rays due to her pregnancy.
2On June 18, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Application to the respondents and the named affected party, CAW Canada Local 4266 ("CAW"), the applicant's union. The Notice of Application advised the affected party that if it wished to seek intervention status in the matter, a Request to Intervene must be filed with the Tribunal no later than 35 days from June 18, 2010.
3On June 29, 2010, Brinks filed a Request for an Order asking that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as against it because Brinks is a federally regulated employer and does not fall under provincial legislation in Ontario. Brinks provided no other information except for this statement to confirm that it is federally regulated.
4On July 20, 2010, the CAW filed a Request to Intervene. As stated in Bettencourt v. Peel District School Board, 2010 HRTO 1644, a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal will grant the bargaining agent intervener status when requested. The CAW is the bargaining agent for the applicant and, as such, I am satisfied that the CAW has an interest in the Application. The Request to Intervene is granted. In its submissions accompanying its Request, the CAW argues that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the Application because Brinks is federally regulated company.
5On July 22, 2010, the Tribunal received GWL's Response to the Application. GWL did not file any response with respect to respondent Brinks' request to dismiss because of jurisdiction.
6It is unclear from Brinks' Request on what basis the respondent's enterprise is considered to be exclusively federally regulated. There remains a question as to whether or not some or all of the Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking and, if so, is within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
7The Tribunal requests the parties to provide written submissions and any legal authorities with respect to whether the Application, in whole or in part, is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The parties are directed to deliver to each other and to file with the Tribunal their written submissions and legal authorities within 21 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of August, 2010.
"signed by"________________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair