HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
William Wallen
Applicant
-and-
Ontario Power Generation, Bob Hanrahan, Don MacLeod, Janet LaPorte, Caroyln Carlson, Sherry Munroe, Amanda Benoit, A.G. Sotto
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha
Indexed as: Wallen v. Ontario Power Generation
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Ontario Power Generation, Bob Hanrahan, Don MacLeod, Janet LaPorte, Caroyln Carlson, Sherry Munroe, Amanda Benoit, A.G. Sotto, Respondents
Frances Gallop, Counsel
1This is an Application filed on July 22, 2013 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 disability.
2On September 16, 2013, the respondents filed a request to dismiss the Application because it is outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction as a federally regulated business or service. The respondents point out that the applicant was employed as a mechanical technician at the corporate respondent's Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The respondents submit that employment-related matters concerning nuclear facilities are federally regulated.
3The applicant did not file submissions in response to the respondents' request to dismiss. Although the applicant's union filed, on September 17, 2013, a request to intervene, it did not address the jurisdictional issue.
4The Tribunal has determined in previous decisions that those employed in the nuclear power sector of this same corporate respondent are federally regulated for the purpose of human rights matters: see Szmiett v. Ontario Power Generation, 2013 HRTO 679; Suri v. Ontario Power Generation, 2011 HRTO 1804; Henderson v. Ontario Power Generation, 2009 HRTO 631 and Osier v. Ontario Power Generation, 2008 HRTO 374. Accordingly, the applicant's human rights dispute is under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission not this Tribunal.
5For reasons discussed above, the Tribunal is of the view that it has no jurisdiction over the Application. It is not necessary to address the union's request to intervene in light of this decision.
6The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 24th day of October, 2013.
”Signed by”___________________
Ena Chadha
Vice-chair