Anderson v. Attawapiskat First Nations Education Authority, 2013 HRTO 935

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Valerie Anderson

Applicant

-and-

Attawapiskat First Nations Education Authority, Attawapiskat First Nations Education Authority Vezina Secondary School, Maryann Davis and Oral Travers

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: May 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 935

Indexed as: Anderson v. Attawapiskat First Nations Education Authority

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Valerie Anderson, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application was filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), on August 18, 2011, and alleges discrimination with respect to the applicant’s employment as a teacher with the respondent, Attawapiskat First Nations Education Authority.

2On January 31, 2013, the Tribunal received submissions from the applicant in response to an Interim Decision in this matter dated December 3, 2012, 2012 HRTO 2256. In her submissions, the applicant noted that she had also filed a claim with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) on this matter.

3In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated April 8, 2013, the Tribunal indicated that it appeared that the Application may be outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as the subject matter of the Application and the respondents may be federally-regulated, as opposed to provincially-regulated. The CAD referred to the Tribunal’s decision in Tobin v. Aroland First Nations, 2012 HRTO 2360, wherein the Tribunal cited a number of cases in which allegations of discrimination related to employment in the provision of educational services on First Nations were dealt with under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.

4In its CAD, the Tribunal sought submissions from the parties on whether or not the Application is outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as falling within federal rather than provincial jurisdiction. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to indicate the status of her claim field with the CHRC, and whether or not the CHRC had accepted jurisdiction over her claim.

5On April 13, 2012, the applicant provided submissions in response to the Tribunal’s CAD, informing the Tribunal that the CHRC had accepted jurisdiction over her claim. The respondents have not provided submissions in response to the Tribunal’s CAD, and the time for doing so has passed.

6Based on the information provided by the applicant, I find that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this matter as the Application falls under federal, rather than provincial, jurisdiction. The Application is therefore dismissed, and the June 28, 2013 hearing date in this matter is cancelled.