Robert Haskin v. L.M.B. Transport Inc., 2011 HRTO 1084

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Haskin Applicant

-and-

L.M.B. Transport Inc. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: June 13, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1084 Indexed as: Haskin v. L.M.B. Transport Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) on March 4, 2011. The applicant alleges discrimination due to disability in employment.

2The respondent has not filed a Response. Instead, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) (“RFOP”) dated May 9, 2011 requesting the Tribunal dismiss the Application. The respondent submitted that the Application should be dismissed because it is a freight carrier for hire and routinely transports goods throughout Canada and between provinces. The applicant did not file a Response to the RFOP.

3Rule 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside of its jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has recognized that the Tribunal may not require a full response where the respondent alleges that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction. Instead, a respondent who asserts that the matter falls under federal, rather than provincial, jurisdiction may deliver and file a Request for Order During Proceedings in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules, setting out the basis upon which it argues that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction and all its arguments and evidence in support of this conclusion: Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381, 2008 at paragraphs. 9 and 10.

4In this case, the respondent filed a RFOP, pursuant to the process set out in Masood. The applicant has not contradicted the respondent’s assertion that the matter falls under federal, rather than provincial jurisdiction because the respondent engages in inter-provincial transportation. In these circumstances, based upon the unchallenged facts, I find that the respondent is federally regulated and that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application: see, for example, Chamberlain v. 2027467 Ontario, 2008 HRTO 216.

5The Application is dismissed.