Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Sylvester Larmond Applicant
-and-
Bell Technical Solutions Inc. Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: July 18, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 1253 Indexed as: Larmond v. Bell Technical Solutions Inc.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Sylvester Larmond, Applicant Self-represented
Bell Technical Solutions Inc., Respondent Sarah Crossley, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"), alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour. Specifically, the applicant alleges that he was subjected to a racial slur while one of the respondent's employees was servicing his home.
2The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings ("RFOP") and a Response taking the position that the Application falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction. The applicant objected to that position, stating that he had filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission ("CHRC") which determined, he submitted, that the issue fell within provincial not federal jurisdiction.
3The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision, 2011 HRTO 1203, dated July 4, 2011, holding the Application in abeyance, pending the decision of another application before it wherein the respondent was also named as a party and the same jurisdictional issue was being considered by the Tribunal.
4A Case Assessment Direction dated February 11, 2013 ("the February CAD"), advised the parties that the Tribunal had released a decision in the other application, Swift v. Bell Technical Solutions, 2013 HRTO 210, which found that the respondent's employment relations fall within federal, rather than provincial, jurisdiction. The February CAD stated that it appeared that this case falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction for the same reason and invited the applicant to file submissions explaining why he takes the position that the Application fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
5The applicant filed written submissions. He submitted that the Application was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction because he initially "sent it to Ottawa" and "they sent it back". He did not comment on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in his Application in light of Swift.
6A further Case Assessment Direction dated March 1, 2013 ("the March CAD") was issued. It directed the applicant to provide a copy of any correspondence he had received from the CHRC showing that his federal complaint had been dismissed, his file closed and/or his federal complaint withdrawn. The respondent was directed to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal's jurisdiction was affected as Swift was decided in the context of the social area of employment rather than