Satanaporn Ruangsakulrach v. Servisair Co. Ltd. and Ken Won, 2011 HRTO 389

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Satanaporn Ruangsakulrach Applicant

-and-

Servisair Co. Ltd. and Ken Won Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: February 25, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 389 Indexed as: Ruangsakulrach v. Servisair

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”), on May 10, 2010. The Application was returned on several occasions due to incompleteness. The Application alleges that the applicant experienced discrimination while being trained as a new ground service agent at Terminals 1 and 3 of the Pearson International Airport.

2On January 7, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss 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 business or service. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide written submissions no later than February 7, 2011 addressing the issue of jurisdiction. The Tribunal further advised that it the applicant did not file written submissions by that deadline the Tribunal may make its decision based only on the information in the Application and or may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application.

3The applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s correspondence and the timeline for providing written submissions has elapsed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.

4I further find that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The applicant’s materials indicate that the corporate respondent is the “world’s leading operator in aviation ground services” and that the applicant was being trained to work as a passenger service agent at the airport whose duties included issuing and checking travel documents. The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally regulated businesses. Federal and provincial labour relations jurisprudence has consistently concluded that federal jurisdiction over aeronautics also applies to the employment of aircrew, persons who service and refuel aircraft, baggage handlers and persons engaged in pre-board passenger screening. As such, it appears that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with this Application.

5Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.