Wave v. Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc., 2012 HRTO 879

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Danila Wave

Applicant

-and-

Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc., Direct Limited Partnership, Canada Cartage System Limited Partnership and Matthew Lawrence

Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: May 3, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 879

Indexed as: Wave v. Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc.

1The applicant filed the enclosed Application on February 1, 2012 alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and reprisal in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the Code).

2The Tribunal has not yet delivered the Application to the respondents. Rule 13.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure states that where it appears to the Tribunal that an Application is outside its jurisdiction, it shall, prior to sending the Application to the respondent, issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the Application (“NOID”). The NOID is only sent to the applicant, and requires the applicant to file written submissions.

3On March 19, 2012, the Tribunal Registrar sent a NOID to the applicant which noted that the Application appeared to be outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the respondents appeared to be federally regulated. The Tribunal required the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction by no later than April 18, 2012. The applicant did not file submissions on jurisdiction, but did file submissions requesting the Tribunal to make a decision on the basis of the “materials previously filed.”

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage, before it is served on the respondents, if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A decision to continue to deal with an application is not a final decision regarding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in respect of the application: see Rule 13.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

5On the face of this Application, the applicant appears to allege differential treatment by the respondents in a warehouse operation, owned and/or operated by one or more of the named respondents. It is not plain and obvious, given the information before me, that the subject matter of the Application is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal will continue to process the Application.

6In accordance with Rule 13.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules, a copy of the Application, Notice of Application, the correspondence between the applicant and the Tribunal regarding the NOID letter, and this Case Assessment Direction will be sent to the respondents. The respondents are directed to file a full Response(s) to the Application in accordance with the Rules. The respondents are also directed to file submissions on the issue of whether the organizational respondents are federally regulated enterprises.

7I am not seized of this matter.