Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Denis Ayotte
Applicant
-and-
The City of Ottawa (OC Transpo), Troy Charter, Alain Mercier, Laurie Blackstone, Marg White, Jackie Lepors and Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Naomi Overend
Date: August 3, 2011
Citation: 2011 HRTO 1456
Indexed as: Ayotte v. Ottawa (City)
1The applicant, a bus driver with OC Transpo, filed an Application on March 28 2011, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2A Response was filed on behalf of the City of Ottawa, which runs OC Transpo, and the individual respondents. The Response noted that although the applicant had named OC Transpo as his employer, the correct corporate name of the organizational respondent is the City of Ottawa. The style of cause has been amended to reflect this correction.
3Both the Response filed on behalf of the City of Ottawa and the Response filed on behalf of Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279 (“Local 279”) asked the Tribunal to dismiss the Application on the basis that the issues in dispute are within exclusive federal jurisdiction because OC Transpo regularly engages in inter-provincial transportation.
4The applicant filed submissions in response to this assertion, which largely expand on the particulars of discrimination he alleges he has experienced.
5The 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.
6The Tribunal has previously held that OC Transpo is a federally regulated transportation business that crosses provincial boundaries. See Morgan v. Ottawa (City), 2008 HRTO 145; Jarabek v. OC Transpo, 2009 HRTO 1466; Gololi v. OC Transpo, 2010 HRTO 1734 and Ayoubloo v. OC Transpo, 2011 HRTO 1184. This reasoning also applies to employees of OC Transpo.
7Further, this reasoning also applies to Local 279, the bargaining agent for the applicant, in relation to its representation of the applicant in his disputes with OC Transpo. His allegations against Local 279 in his Application relate to its refusal to take his grievance against OC Transpo to arbitration.
8As such, I find that the Application falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of August, 2011.
”signed by”____________
Naomi Overend
Vice-chair