Sarmiento v. Shaw Satellite G.P., 2012 HRTO 90

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yubi Sarmiento Applicant

-and-

Shaw Satellite G.P., Brad Shaw, Jonelle Gillis, Nancy Cabral and Ahmed Salim Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: January 13, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 90 Indexed As: Sarmiento v. Shaw Satellite G.P.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Yubi Sarmiento, Applicant ) Nothing submitted

Shaw Satellite G.P., Brad Shaw, ) Jonelle Gillis, Nancy Cabral ) Susan Ibach, Representative and Ahmed Salim, Respondents )

1The applicant filed this Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (“Code”), on July 18, 2011. The applicant alleges discrimination in employment based on sex and marital status. The Application alleges that the individual respondents discriminated against the applicant in the course of their employment with the corporate respondent.

2In a Case Assessment Direction dated November 4, 2011, the Tribunal noted that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide because the respondents appear to be a federal government department, agency or a federally-regulated business or service. The Tribunal invited submission from the parties regarding this jurisdictional issue.

3The respondents filed brief written submissions on November 14, 2011. They state that the corporate respondent is a federally-regulated company.

4The respondents’ submissions were delivered to the applicant’s representative on December 14, 2011. The applicant was invited to file responding written submissions by no later than December 21, 2011. The applicant has not filed any submissions and the time for doing so has elapsed.

5I find that the corporate respondent is an inter-provincial federally-regulated telecommunications company, which is subject to federal jurisdiction under s.92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867. As such, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application in respect of the corporate respondent: see Dougan v. Rogers Communications, 2009 HRTO 1169.

6In addition, as the allegations against the individual respondents relate to their conduct as employees of a federally-regulated company, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application in respect of the individual respondents.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.