Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
BETWEEN:
Joanne Jarrett Applicant
-and-
William Orr Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: March 7, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 484 Indexed as: Jarrett v. William Orr
1The applicant filed an Application on September 2, 2009 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment on the basis of sex and disability. The applicant alleges that she worked for the respondent’s employer, Transport V.A., as a truck driver.
2The respondent filed a Response on December 14, 2009, denying the allegations of discrimination and reprisal. The Response indicates that the respondent was the Ontario Regional Manager of Transport V.A. and that the applicant was hired through an employment agency.
3On January 6, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) to the parties. The CAD indicated that the Application appeared to be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the allegations in the Application appeared to relate a federally regulated enterprise, namely a transportation business that extends beyond the province. The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions addressing this jurisdictional issue.
4The respondent filed submissions on January 26, 2012. The respondent submits that the Application should be dismissed because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Application as it falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. The respondent confirms that the applicant was assigned to perform truck driving for a now dissolved company that transported goods across provincial boundaries. The respondent is employed by the parent company of the dissolved business and the parent company is incorporated under federal laws as a federally regulated transportation business based in Quebec. In addition, the respondent argues that the applicant had no employment relationship with his employer and, therefore, Application should also be dismissed on that basis.
5The applicant filed submissions opposing dismissal. The applicant disputes that a transport company doing business between provinces comes under federal jurisdiction. The applicant submits that she believes federally regulated transport businesses are only those that travel to the United States. The applicant poses are number of questions regarding the distinction between provincial and federal jurisdiction.
6There is no doubt that, 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 a province are within federal jurisdiction. See for example, Chevez v. St. Helen’s Meat Packers Limited, 2011 HRTO 1739; Soler v. Luckhart Transport, 2009 HRTO 1486; Rowland v. Canada Cartage Systems, 2009 HRTO 1941; Nartnev v. A.S.A.P. Plus, 2009 HRTO 2137; Darrall v. ASL Distribution Services, 2009 HRTO 1761 and Fisher v. Polymer Distribution, 2009 HRTO 146.
7There is no evidence before me to suggest that the Application pertains to matters under provincial jurisdiction. The applicant acknowledges that the company she alleges she worked for as a truck driver engaged in business crossing provinces and that during her employment she travelled across provincial boundaries. As such, the subject matter of the Application comes under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
8Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 7^th^ day of March, 2012.
“Signed by”
__________________________________
Ena Chadha Vice-chair