Antenucci v. 1416992 Ontario Inc. o/a ATL Logistics, 2014 HRTO 646

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Natalie Antenucci Applicant

-and-

1416992 Ontario Inc. o/a ATL Logistics and Linton Campbell Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl Date: May 6, 2014 Citation: 2014 HRTO 646 Indexed as: Antenucci v. 1416992 Ontario Inc. o/a ATL Logistics

APPEARANCES

Natalie Antenucci, Applicant Kingsley Laurin, Counsel

1416992 Ontario Inc. o/a ATL Logistics and Linton Campbell, Respondents Eric M. Sabbah, Representative

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy, sexual solicitation or advances, gender identity and reprisal or threat of reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2At all material times the personal respondent was employed by the corporate respondent.

3The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial, rather than federal, jurisdiction. Pursuant to subsection 92 (10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, (U.K.). 30 & 31 Victoria, c.3, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction, The issue of whether or not the Application is subject to the Code was raised by the Tribunal at the commencement of the hearing. The hearing was adjourned to the following day and the parties made submissions on the issue at that time.

4The respondents indicate that the corporate respondent is engaged in the business of international and interprovincial trucking, that its trucks are licensed to provide transportation across the provinces and the United States and that its truckers are subject to the Canada Labour Code. They indicate that the corporate respondent does not provide warehousing and that it is not a freight forwarding company.

5The applicant did not appear to dispute this, rather it was suggested by the applicant that at the relevant time the corporate respondent’s undertaking may not have been as indicated by the respondents. However, the applicant provided no evidence that at the relevant time the corporate respondent’s undertaking was other than as indicated by the respondents.

DECISION

6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over this Application.

7The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally regulated businesses. Pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction.

8Based on the information provided by the respondents and the applicant, the corporate respondent’s business, consisting of trucking between provinces and the United States, is federally regulated. Consequently the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with the Application.

9Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.