HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sureka Sriharan
Applicant
-and-
Handlex Inc., Veronica Medeiros and Claire Phillips
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Judith Keene
Indexed as: Sriharan v. Handlex Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sureka Sriharan, Applicant
Self-represented
Handlex Inc., Veronica Medeiros and Claire Phillips, Respondents
Donald B. Jarvis, Counsel
Introduction
1This is a Decision in respect of an Application filed on June 21, 2012 under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of citizenship, color and race.
2The respondents, having requested and received an extension of time, filed a Response form which does not address the allegations made in the Application, but contains submissions to the effect that the corporate respondent is a federally regulated enterprise, and that for this reason the subject matter of the Application is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3The applicant has not responded to the submissions made by the respondents, and the time for doing so has elapsed.
4The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent provides “airport ground handling and cargo services in Canada. Its ground handling services include passenger handling, baggage services, ramp handling, cabin cleaning, exterior wash, ground equipment rentals, ground service equipment maintenance, and operations center. The company also offers a range of passenger services, including passenger check-in, gate services, ticket purchase, departure control systems, irregularity handling, special needs passengers’ assistance, and lost and found services. In addition, it provides full load and unload services for a range of aircraft.”
5The respondents submit that the corporate respondent is clearly federally regulated because matters relating to air travel come within federal jurisdiction, pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3. The respondents noted this issue of jurisdiction has been litigated with respect to airport and airline support services in Butler Aviation of Canada Ltd. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 1975 CanLII 2241 (FCA), [1975] F.C. 590. In that case, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that a decision for Canada Labour Relations Board certifying a union should not be set aside for lack of jurisdiction. The employer in Butler Aviation operated an aircraft ground service business; the Court of Appeal noted that the undertaking included assisting passengers with baggage and lounge facilities, and concluded that this was “an integral part, or necessarily incidental to the operation of a federal work undertaking or business” as that phrase was used in Reference re Validity of Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act 1955 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1955] SCR 529 and Letter Carriers Union v. CUPW [1975] SCR 178.
6The respondent also submitted three bargaining certificates from the Canada Industrial Relations Board in respect of the corporate respondents operations in Ontario and in British Columbia; however, these in themselves are not determinative of the federal jurisdiction issue.
7As noted in Wave v. Canada Cartage Diversified GP Inc., 2012 HRTO 1362, at para. 10, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province are within federal jurisdiction. As in that case, there is no evidence before me to contradict the respondents’ position that the corporate respondent provides services that are an integral part of a federally-regulated undertaking.
8Where a matter falls under federal jurisdiction, the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S. 1985, c. H-6, generally applies and the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the “CHRC”) often has the power to deal with allegations that human rights have been violated. Where the CHRC is clearly the proper forum in which to raise the dispute, the applicant may wish to file a complaint there.
9For the above-noted reasons, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 23rd day of January, 2013.
”signed by”
Judith Keene
Vice-chair