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

Date: September 14, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1875

Indexed as: Craig v. Brinks Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSONS

Katherine Craig, Applicant ) On her own behalf

Brinks Canada Ltd, Respondent ) George Vassos, Counsel

Great West Life-Scarborough ) Susan McCorquodale, Counsel

Disability Office, Respondent )

CAW Canada Local 4266, Intervenor ) Mike Armstrong, Representative

BACKGROUND

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, the respondent Brinks Canada Limited (“Brinks”), discriminated against her because she was pregnant and failed to provide her with accommodation. The applicant further alleges that the respondent Great West Life Assurance Company (“GWL”) discriminatorily denied her employment disability 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. On June 29, 2010, respondent 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. On July 20, 2010, the CAW filed a Request to Intervene.

3On July 22, 2010, the Tribunal received respondent GWL’s Response to the Application. This Response has not been provided to the parties. GWL indicates that it entered into a policy of group insurance with Brinks and that it declined to provide the applicant with short-term disability benefits because she did not satisfy the definition of disability in accordance with the policy.

4By way of an earlier Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1685, the Tribunal granted the CAW intervenor status. In the same decision, the Tribunal sought submissions 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.

5The respondents and the CAW filed written submissions. The applicant did not file submissions.

SUBMISSIONS

6Brinks advises that it operates local, national and international transportation of high value cargo for customers, including banks and other federally-regulated financial institutions. The applicant is employed at Brinks’ Ottawa branch, from which employees make daily trips to Montreal and other parts of Quebec. Brinks submits that its Ontario operations are governed by federal jurisdiction and such jurisdiction has been confirmed in various federal human rights and labour relations board decisions.

7The CAW confirmed that it is the bargaining agent for the applicant’s Ottawa branch and that the relevant collective agreement binds Brinks and CAW to the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2.

8GWL submits that it takes no position with respect to the issue of jurisdiction.

DECISION

9The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally-regulated businesses. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has the power to deal with human rights matters that fall under federal 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. See Soler v. Luckhart Transport, 2009 HRTO 1486, and Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941.

10Based on the information provided by Brinks and the CAW, the respondent is a federally-regulated company in the business of interprovincial and international transportation of high value cargo, including financial instruments. Various provincial and federal agencies have treated Brinks as subject to federal legislation, including decisions by both federal and provincial Labour Relations Boards finding that Brinks is a federal undertaking. I find that the Application, as it pertains to Brinks, falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

11I find that the Application, as it pertains to GWL, is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the allegations relate to GWL’s interpretation and administration of its insurance policy. GWL was provided with the opportunity to make submissions with respect to the issue of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over some or all of the Application and it chose not to make any. I am satisfied that the respondent GWL is provincially-regulated and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with this part of the Application.

12Accordingly, the Application in relation to Brinks is dismissed. The Tribunal will proceed with the Application as it relates to GWL and will serve GWL’s Response on the applicant and the affected party. The Tribunal further directs that GWL provide written confirmation with respect to its proper legal name.

13I am not seized of this matter.