Dale Munroe v. Unique Personnel Canada Inc., 2012 HRTO 945

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dale Munroe

Applicant

-and-

Unique Personnel Canada Inc.

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: May 10, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 945

Indexed as: Munroe v. Unique Personnel Canada

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Dale Munroe, Applicant ) Self-represented

Unique Personnel Canada Inc., Respondent ) Josie Granitto, Representative

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 October 25, 2011, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to employment. The applicant alleges that he was dismissed from his employment with Unique Personnel Canada Inc. (“Unique Personnel”) because he suffered a workplace injury.

2On March 6, 2012, the respondent filed a Response, without a narrative, asking that the Tribunal dismiss the Application as against it because it is a federally regulated employer. The respondent provided no other information except for this statement to confirm that it is federally regulated.

3On March 22, 2011, the applicant filed a response and submitted that, even though the respondent is federally regulated, does not mean that the company is allowed to discriminate on the basis of disability.

4In a Case Assessment Direction dated April 2, 2012, the Tribunal required the parties to provide further information as to the respondent’s status as a federally regulated entity, as well as clarification regarding the proper identity of the applicant’s employer given that the applicant’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board materials indicate that the applicant’s employer was Seaboard/Harmac.

5On April 17, 2012, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal and provided a copy of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (“OLRB”) decision, Unique Personnel Services Inc. v. Seaton and Ministry of Labour [2001] O.E.S.A.D. No. 25, involving the respondent. The OLRB decision indicates that the respondent exclusively provides staffing services to Harmac, a federal undertaking, and, therefore, comes under federal jurisdiction.

6Based on the foregoing, I find that this Application relates to employment in a federal work or undertaking. The applicant appears to acknowledge that the company he worked for was federally regulated. The OLRB decision indicates that the respondent is a vital and essential part of a federal undertaking. The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally regulated businesses. As such, the subject matter of the Application comes under exclusive federal jurisdiction and not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.