Katie Connor v. Eazy Express Inc., 2010 HRTO 673

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katie Connor

Applicant

-and-

Eazy Express Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee

Date: March 26, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 673

Indexed as: Connor v. Eazy Express

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Eazy Express Inc., Respondent ) Thomas Stefanik, Counsel

Katie Connor, Applicant ) On her own behalf

1The purpose of this Decision is to address the respondent’s Request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

2The applicant, who was a courier driver employed by the respondent, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, on October 9, 2009. The respondent filed a Response on December 23, 2009.

3The respondent then filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings on January 20, 2010, which requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application because it is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Specifically, the respondent submitted that the respondent is governed by federal legislation, including the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2. The respondent further submitted that it has been involved in a number of proceedings before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and no party has ever taken the position that the respondent was not properly subject to federal jurisdiction before that Board. The respondent attached a Decision of that Board involving the respondent to support its submissions. The Decision identified the respondent as a national courier service, who contracts with Canada Post Corporation.

4The applicant filed a Response to a Request for an Order on February 1, 2010, which opposed the respondent’s Request. The applicant submitted that she was informed by Industry Canada that the respondent is not federally regulated, and she was informed by the provincial Ministry of Consumer and Business Services that the respondent is provincially incorporated.

5Under 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. The respondent’s submissions and the Decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board that it attached to its submissions indicate that the respondent is a national courier service that engages in transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the borders of Ontario. The applicant did not present any evidence to suggest the contrary.

6Furthermore, in cases involving other national courier services, the Tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction over the Application: see Kennedy v. Purolator Courier, 2009 HRTO 2003, Escudero v. United Parcel Service, 2009 HRTO 811, and Shaikh v. United Parcel Service Canada, 2008 HRTO 279.

7For these reasons, I find that this Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Application is dismissed.