Lenard Schroh v. Gardewine Group Inc., 2012 HRTO 2026

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lenard Schroh

Applicant

-and-

Gardewine Group Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: October 24, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2026

Indexed as: Schroh v. Gardewine Group Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Lenard Schroh, Applicant ) Self-Represented

Gardewine Group Inc., Respondent ) Doug Witt, Representative

1This is an Application filed on May 7, 2012, under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The purpose of this Decision is to address the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear this Application.

2The Application arises out of the applicant's employment with the respondent. The applicant was employed by the respondent as a truck driver.

3On August 14, 2012, the respondent requested that the Application be dismissed without filing a full Response because it takes the position that the matter is exclusively within federal jurisdiction because it is a federally regulated "interprovincial freight carrier". The respondent attached an "Interjurisdictional Transporter Registration Certificate" to prove its status as a transporter which carries tobacco in bulk in and out of Ontario.

4On September 17, 2012, the applicant filed his objection to the early dismissal of the Application. His submissions are very brief: "Do not dismiss on grounds of federal jurisdiction… because action took place [here in Red Lake]."

DECISION

5The Tribunal finds that it has no jurisdiction over this Application.

6The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal jurisdiction. Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction.

7The applicant does not dispute that the nature of the respondent's business is interprovincial trucking, and it appears from his submissions that the work performed by the applicant while at the Red River location is integrated within the respondent's business which, according to documents that the applicant attached to his Application, indeed appears to be interprovincial.

8Based on the submissions made, I find that the respondent is a federally- regulated business. As the Code only applies to matters within provincial jurisdiction, I find that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the Application.

9The Application is dismissed.