Corriveau v. Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation, 2015 HRTO 42

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Natalie Corriveau

Applicant

-and-

Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation and Ann Chitovas

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: January 13, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 42

Indexed as: Corriveau v. Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Natalie Corriveau, Applicant

Self-represented

Garda World Cash Services Canada Corporation, Respondent

Mathieu Duceppe, Counsel

Ann Chitovas, Respondent

No one appearing

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 disability.

2The applicant is a teller in the cash room of the organizational respondent’s extraprovincial and interprovincial cash-in-transit business. In her Application, she states that her duties include processing accounts, data entries and preparing bank orders. The applicant alleges that the individual respondent harassed her and declined to provide assistance when the applicant’s medical condition caused her difficultly.

3The organizational respondent filed a Response in which in requested dismissal of the Application without a full Response because it submitted that the issues in the Application are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The organizational respondent submitted that its extraprovincial and interprovincial cash-in-transit business involves the transportation of cash for clients, mainly banks, throughout Canada. The organizational respondent submits that its business is a federally regulated activity. In support of that position, the organizational respondent states that its employees at its Ottawa branch, including the applicant, are represented by Unifor, a trade union, and that Unifor was certified federally by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (“CIRB”). The organizational respondent submitted an order of the CIRB, Order No.: 8145-U, confirming this certification.

4By letter dated August 6, 2014, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the Request to Dismiss by completing a Form 11, Response to a Request for an Order, by August 20, 2014. The applicant complied with this direction and filed a Form 11 in which she stated that “[T]he issues in the application are within exclusive federal jurisdiction.”

Analysis and Decision

5The applicant is represented by a union certified under the Canada Labour Code, which indicates that the applicant’s work was federally regulated and therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The organizational respondent is in the business of transporting cash between provinces and, pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province are within federal jurisdiction. The applicant’s duties appear to be integral to this business activity and she concedes that the issues in the Application are within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

6In these circumstances, I find that this Application falls outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Any claim must be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

7The Application is dismissed.