Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Scott Michon
Applicant
-and-
Pelletier Auto Body and Powder Coating, Tom Pelletier and Roy Pelletier
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed as: Michon v. Pelletier Auto Body and Powder Coating
1The applicant filed an Application on May 28, 2010, under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment.
2On July 27, 2010, the respondents filed a Request for Dismissal – without Full Response (“Request”). The respondents submit that the organizational respondent is located on Fort William First Nation and is owned and operated by the individual respondent, Tom Pelletier, who is a member of Fort William First Nation and a “status Indian” under the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, as amended. The respondents request a ruling from the Tribunal on jurisdiction, in light of section 88 of the Indian Act, which states as follows:
Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other Act of Parliament, all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act or the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, or with any order, rule, regulation or law of a band made under those Acts, and except to the extent that those provincial laws make provision for any matter for which provision is made by or under those Acts.
3On August 18, 2010, the applicant filed a Response to the respondents’ Request (“Response”). The applicant submits that he initially contacted the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “CHRC”) to file a complaint against the respondents. He completed the intake process, but was subsequently advised, by letter dated June 18, 2010 from the CHRC, that it does not appear that the matters he raises are related to a federally regulated body. The CHRC advised that it was unable to assist him and suggested that he may wish to bring his concerns to the attention of this Tribunal. A copy of the letter from the CHRC was attached to his Response.
4Pursuant to section 88 of the Indian Act, all general provincial laws are applicable to “Indians” within the meaning of the Indian Act, absent particular exceptions. In the present case, the respondents have not pointed to the terms of any treaty or any other “Act of Parliament”, including the Indian Act and the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, 2005, c. 9, or any order, rule, regulation or law of a band made under those Acts, that would preclude the application of the Code to the respondents. Based on the materials before me, it appears that the Application is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The respondents’ Request is dismissed.
5In light of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the respondents are required to file a full Response (Form 2) within 35 days of the date of this Interim Decision.
6I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 5th day of October, 2010.
“Signed by”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair