Steven Edwards v. American Airlines, 2011 HRTO 129

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven Edwards

Applicant

-and-

American Airlines

Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: January 18, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 129

Indexed as: Edwards v. American Airlines

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Steven Edwards, Applicant ) Self-represented

)

1The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry and disability in the area of goods, services and facilities. The allegation appears to be that the respondent used excessive force on the applicant when he was attempting to board a flight. The applicant seeks a financial remedy in the amount of $21,500,000.00.

2On December 14, 2010, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss seeking submissions from the applicant as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application as the respondent “appears to be a federal government department, agency or federally regulated business or service”.

3The applicant responded to the Notice. However, his submissions did not address the issue of jurisdiction.

4The Code applies only to human rights matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction. Human rights matters that fall under federal jurisdiction are dealt with by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The issue therefore is whether the respondent is a provincial or federal undertaking.

5Section 2 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 reads as follows:

“federal work, undertaking or business” means any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, ….

e) aerodromes, aircraft or a line of air transportation.

6The respondent is an airline and therefore a “federal work, undertaking or business”. It is subject to federal regulation. Consequently, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application.

7For these reasons the Application is dismissed.