White v. Seaboard Liquid Carriers Limited, 2015 HRTO 375

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Yvonne White

Applicant

-and-

Seaboard Liquid Carriers Limited

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: March 24, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 375

Indexed as: White v. Seaboard Liquid Carriers Limited

APPEARANCES

Yvonne White, Applicant Self-represented

Seaboard Liquid Carriers Limited, Respondent Kyle MacIsaac, Counsel

1This is an Application filed 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 age. The applicant is a driver employed by the respondent and alleges she was denied modified work after she injured her shoulder.

2The respondent has requested that the Application be dismissed because that it is a federally-regulated enterprise engaged in interprovincial transportation, which is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In support of these submissions the respondent has produced the applicant’s employment agreement that references the Canada Labour Code, reflecting the parties’ intention to be bound by federal legislation and a decision of the Ontario Ministry of Labour dismissing a claim against the respondent because the respondent is a federal undertaking. The Respondent also referred to a decision by a referee appointed under the Canada Labour Code adjudicating a dispute in which the respondent was a party.

3The applicant responded to the respondent’s request to dismiss by stating that the Application should not be dismissed until the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) determines whether it has jurisdiction over her human rights claims. The applicant also requested that the Tribunal defer the Application because she is filing a complaint with the CHRC. In support of that the request to defer, she submitted that the respondent is federally-regulated. She has not disputed the facts or materials provided by the respondent.

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Code only applies to matters that come within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally-regulated enterprises or undertakings. The CHRC has the power to deal with human rights matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of the province are within federal jurisdiction.

5Based on the materials provided by the respondent, and the applicant’s apparent admission, I find that it is plain and obvious that the respondent is a federally-regulated undertaking and that this Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

6The Application is dismissed.