HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hooshang Ayoubloo

Applicant

-and-

OC Transpo

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: June 20, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 1184

Indexed as: Ayoubloo v. OC Transpo

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 January 17, 2011, alleging discrimination on the basis of race with respect to employment. The applicant is a bus driver with the respondent OC Transpo.

2On April 11, 2010, the respondent filed its Response, wherein it asked the Tribunal dismiss the Application on an early basis because the issues in dispute are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The respondent submits that it regularly engages in inter-provincial transportation.

3On April 11, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) directing the applicant to file submissions no later than April 26, 2011 regarding the issue of federal jurisdiction. The Notice advised the applicant that if submissions were not filed the Tribunal may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application.

DECISION

4The 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.

5The Tribunal has previously held that the respondent OC Transpo is a federally regulated transportation business that crosses provincial boundaries: Morgan v. Ottawa (City), 2008 HRTO 145; Jarabek v. OC Transpo, 2009 HRTO 1466; and Goloii v. OC Transpo, 2010 HRTO 1734. As such, I find that the Application falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

6In addition, I note that the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s Notice and the timeline for providing written submissions has elapsed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.