Kaboni v. Canada Post Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1832

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Darlene Kaboni Applicant

-and-

Canada Post Corporation, Manulife Financial, Rita Robichaud, Keith Breit, Elaine Tarini, Mike Lacasse, Esther Wilson, Darrell Richie, Kathryn Talbot, Kendra Haggerty and Tracy Salois Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Ken Bhattacharjee Date: October 12, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1832 Indexed as: Kaboni v. Canada Post Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY Darlene Kaboni, Applicant (Self-represented)

1On October 7, 2010, the applicant, who is employed as a postal clerk with the Canada Post Corporation (“CPC”) in Sudbury, filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, which alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to employment.

2The individual respondents, Rita Robichaud, Keith Breit, Elaine Tarini, Mike Lacasse, Esther Wilson, Darrell Richie, and Kathryn Talbot, are all employed by the CPC. The individual respondents, Kendra Haggerty and Tracy Salois, are employed by Manulife Financial.

3On July 12, 2011, the Tribunal’s Registrar issued the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, which informed her that the Application against the CPC and its employees appears to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the CPC appears to be a federal government department or agency, or a federally regulated business or service. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions within 30 days to explain why the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

4On July 29, 2011, the applicant filed written submissions which acknowledged that there may be possible jurisdiction issues with the CPC being a federal organization, but stated that she filed her Application with this Tribunal because it pertains to issues relating to her as a First Nations person in Ontario and a modified worker at the CPC in Sudbury.

5In Phipps v. Canada Post Corporation, 2010 HRTO 2178, the Tribunal considered an Application from a CPC employee in Ontario, and made the following finding at para. 3, which I agree with:

The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. Section 23 of the Canada Post Corporation Act states that the respondent is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, and section 5 defines its objects so as to make clear its business is national and international in character. Pursuant to section 91, paragraph 5 of the Constitution Act, 1867, “postal service” is a federal undertaking. Allegations of human rights violations against this particular respondent should therefore be raised under the Canadian Human Rights Act and not the Code which governs provincial matters.

6Accordingly, in the case at hand, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the CPC and its employees whom the applicant named as individual respondents.

7The Application is dismissed against the CPC, Ms. Robichaud, Mr. Breit, Ms. Tarini, Mr. Lacasse, Ms. Wilson, Mr. Richie, and Ms. Talbot.

8The style of cause will be amended accordingly, and the Tribunal will serve the Application on Manulife Financial, Ms. Haggerty and Ms. Salois.