Huk v. Bell Mobility Inc., 2013 HRTO 1155

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Grzegorz Huk

Applicant

-and-

Bell Mobility Inc., Jennifer Burt, Kelly Patterson and Kristine Geddes

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel

Date: July 3, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1155

Indexed as: Huk v. Bell Mobility Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Grzegorz Huk, Applicant

Mike Hamilton, Counsel

Introduction

1This Decision addresses the issue of whether the Application falls within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

BACKGROUND

2The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment by his employer, Bell Mobility Inc., and members of its management and staff. The applicant also filed a separate claim relating to the same facts and issues with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

3On May 24, 2013, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“Notice”) on the basis that the corporate respondent appears to be a federally-regulated employer. The applicant was invited to provide submissions in response to the Notice.

4By letter dated June 24, 2013, the applicant advised of his position that his claim falls within federal jurisdiction. According to the applicant, he filed the Application with the Tribunal out of an abundance of caution since the Commission has not yet addressed the issue of jurisdiction in this case. The applicant requested that the Application be deferred pending until the jurisdictional issue has been addressed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

5Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an application that is outside its jurisdiction. Rules 13.2 to 13.5 provide for a process under which the Tribunal may initiate a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of jurisdiction, which occurs without the application being sent to the respondents. Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction.

6Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that "local works and undertakings" are within provincial jurisdiction, with the exception of:

Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.

7In Alberta Government Telephones v. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, [1989] 2. S.C.R. 225, the Supreme Court of Canada found that telecommunication undertakings fell within the above exception, and were therefore within federal jurisdiction.

8The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has taken jurisdiction over claims against the corporate respondent. See Genest v. Bell Mobility, 2004 CHRT 19. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has dismissed a claim on the basis that the corporate respondent falls under federal jurisdiction. See Chan v. Bell Mobility Inc. (c.o.b. Bell Mobility), 2003 BCHRT 27.

9Based on the above, it is plain and obvious that the employment relationship between the applicant and the corporate respondent is not governed by the Code. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure.