Chevez v. St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited, 2011 HRTO 1739

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Carlos Chevez Applicant

-and-

St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited and Marilyn Gold Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend Date: September 21, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1739 Indexed as: Chevez v. St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited

1The applicant filed his Application alleging discrimination in employment by St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited and the individual he identified as its vice-president on the basis of race 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 respondents in which it noted that the applicant was, in fact, an employee of Leslie Trucking Limited and provided documents in proof of that. The respondents included a February 3, 2010 decision of an Employment Standards Officer with respect to another employee in which it found that this individual was an employee of Leslie Trucking Limited (not St. Helen’s Meat Packers Ltd.), which engaged in inter-provincial trucking operations and was, thus, subject to federal regulation.

3In his Form 11, the applicant disputes that he was employed by Leslie Trucking Limited, noting that he was fired by the owner of St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited (i.e., the individual respondent) and that all of his assigned deliveries were for St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited, within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario.

4The applicant also points out that Leslie Trucking Limited is owned and operated by St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited, and that the two companies share directors, a legal address and an employer representative. From this, the applicant concludes that he was employed by both companies.

5The applicant does not dispute that the documents submitted by the respondents all show him to be employed by Leslie Trucking Limited. Indeed, the only document the applicant encloses with his Form 11 is a WSIB form in which Leslie Trucking Limited is shown as his employer.

6I cannot conclude that the applicant was employed by St. Helen’s Meat Packers on the basis that he only did deliveries for it or that these delieveries were all in Southern Ontario. Nor is the fact that St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited and Leslie Trucking Limited are related companies determinative of the issue. These factors were discussed in the reasons for decision of the Employment Standards Officer:

St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited, whose principal business is something other than trucking but who [sic] transport their own goods or supplies, is obviously a related company to Leslie Trucking Limited (common address, common clientale, common directors). However, whether related or not related, the fact remains that Leslie Trucking Limited, a company for whom the claimant worked, provided extraprovincial service consistently and without interruption, regardless of the volume of intraprovincial work it has.

7On the basis of the submissions, I find that the applicant was employed by Leslie Trucking Company. I also find that Leslie Trucking Limited regularly and continuously transports goods beyond the borders of Ontario, a fact which the applicant did not dispute.

8Pursuant 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. The fact that a company, which provides continuous and regular extraprovincial transportation services, primarily operates within the boundaries of Ontario, or that the applicant exclusively worked within those boundaries, is not relevant in deterimining whether the respondent is a federally regulated business.

9The 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.

10As 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.