Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Nigel Young Applicant
-and-
Trentway-Wagar Inc. Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith Date: January 31, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 223 Indexed as: Young v. Trentway-Wagar
BACKGROUND
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 July 14, 2011, alleging discrimination on the basis of age with respect to employment. The applicant is a bus driver with the respondent Trentway-Wagar Inc.
2On September 20, 2011, the respondent filed its Response, wherein it asked that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on an early basis because the issue in dispute is within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The respondent submits that it regularly engages in inter-provincial transportation.
3On September 22, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) directing the applicant to file submissions no later than October 6, 2011 regarding the issue of federal jurisdiction. The Notice advised the applicant that if submissions were not filed, the Tribunal may consider the failure to respond as an abandonment of the Application.
ANALYSIS
4The 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. Pursuant 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.
5The Tribunal has previously held that its does not have jurisdiction to consider human rights applications in which the respondent’s business involves interprovincial or international transportation: Morgan v. Ottawa (City), 2008 HRTO 145, Jarabek v. OC Transpo, 2009 HRTO 1466, Goloii v. OC Transpo, 2010 HRTO 1734, MacMullin v. Windsor (City) 2010 HRTO 2326 and Ayoubloo v. OC Transpo, 2011 HRTO 1184.
6In addition, other adjudicative bodies have determined that matters arising out of the employment relationship between the respondent and its employees are subject to federal jurisdiction. These adjudicative bodies held that such employees are subject to the provisions of federal legislation, including the Canada Labour Code. See, Trentway Wagar Inc v. CAW, [2007] OLRD No 5360, Trentway Wagar Inc. v. ATU, [1992] OLRD No 4042, and Charterways Transportation Ltd., [1993] OLRB Rep Nov 1125.
7For these reasons, I find that the Application falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction, and in particular, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. As such, this Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
8In addition, I note that the applicant has not responded to the Tribunal’s Notice and the timeline for providing written submissions has elapsed. In the circumstances, the applicant is deemed to have abandoned the Application.
ORDER
[9]