Di Mascio v. Purolator Inc., 2015 HRTO 1504

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Daria Di Mascio

Applicant

-and-

Purolator Inc. and Nicole Francis

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Cook Date: November 6, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1504 Indexed as: Di Mascio v. Purolator Inc.

1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment.

2The Application names Purolator Inc. and Nicole Francis as respondents.

3Under the Constitution Act, 1867, some businesses are federally regulated and others are provincially regulated. The Ontario Human Rights Code applies only to businesses that are provincially regulated.

4This Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with Applications as against Purolator Inc. because it is a business that is federally regulated (Kennedy v. Purolator Courier, 2009 HRTO 2003). As noted in RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd., 1986 CanLII 5 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada, noted that the labour relations of Purolator are within federal jurisdiction and governed by the Canada Labour Code.

5The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on October 26, 2015, asking the applicant to make submissions on the question of whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider her Application. The applicant responded to the Notice and explained the reasons why she believes she was treated unfairly by the respondents.

6I find that the corporate respondent is federally regulated and that this Tribunal therefore does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application. The Application is dismissed on that basis. Complaints about human rights issues that involve matters that are federally regulated may be filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.