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
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson
Indexed as: Digby v. Trans-Provincial Freight Carriers
1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to address the respondent’s Request to dismiss the Application on the basis that it is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and provide further direction to the parties.
2The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination in employment. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Application 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 and the time for doing so has elapsed.
4Under 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.
5Based on the materials before me, I am not able to determine the jurisdiction issue. The respondents have simply stated that the organizational respondent is a transportation company governed under federal jurisdiction. They have provided no other information or documentation to support their position. It is not clear to me if the respondent is engaged in transportation across Ontario only, or beyond.
6In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to provide further submissions on the jurisdiction issue within ten days of the date of this Interim Decision. The applicant may provide submissions in response within twenty days of the date of this Interim Decision. The parties may want to have regard to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence (See, for example, Soler v. Luckhart Transport, 2009 HRTO 1486, Tassone v. Canpar Transport, 2009 HRTO 1931, and Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941).
7I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of April, 2010.
“signed by”
Brian Eyolfson
Vice-chair