Abdul v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2011 HRTO 2322

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Hana Abdul

Applicant

-and-

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: December 29, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 2322

Indexed as: Abdul v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

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"). The applicant alleges that certain "CBC News" coverage on the respondent's website was racist. The applicant attached to the Application news stories from the respondent's website accessed through the internet.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss ("Notice") to the applicant. The Notice advised the applicant that the Application appears to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because the respondent appears to be a federally-regulated agency, business or service. On November 25, 2011, the applicant provided submissions in response to the Notice, maintaining that she believes the Application is within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. One of the applicant's arguments simply states that the respondent's head office is in Ottawa, which is not outside of Ontario. None of her arguments appear connected to identifying the service provided by the respondent in order to determine whether it is federally-regulated.

3In Abdul v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2011 HRTO 813, the applicant alleged that news coverage carried by the respondent was racist. I also note that the attachment to that Application appears to be a link to television news. The Tribunal found that the Application was not within its jurisdiction because the applicant's allegations related to the content of a news program aired by a national television broadcasting service, and therefore that the respondent is a federally-regulated enterprise. In dismissing that Application, the Tribunal followed established jurisprudence where the courts determined that both the regulation and the content of television and radio broadcasts are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. See Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; Re C.F.R.B. and Attorney-General for Canada, 1973 CanLII 788 (ON CA), [1973] 3 O.R. 819 (C.A.); Capital Cities Communications Inc. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission, 1977 CanLII 12 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141.

4I note that the applicant did not identify the respondent in the present Application as "CBC" as she did in the Application dismissed in 2011 HRTO 813. Instead, she identified the respondent in the present Application as "CBC Ontario". This may have been deliberate and an attempt to avoid a finding that the respondent is a federally-regulated enterprise, but I note that the address indicated on the Applications for "CBC" and "CBC Ontario" is the same.

5Further, regardless of whether there is an Ontario-based division of the CBC, the business of the respondent is the provision of news, and, in this case, it is engaged in the provision of news via the internet. Therefore, it is engaged in telecommunications, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. See Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Association of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427; and Hansraj v. 6553303 Canada, 2009 HRTO 663.

6The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. In conclusion, since the respondent is a federally-regulated enterprise, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this matter.

7The Application is dismissed.