Bal v. City of Ottawa OC Transpo, 2015 HRTO 437

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Hariqbal Singh Bal Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa OC Transpo Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: April 1, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 437 Indexed as: Bal v. City of Ottawa OC Transpo

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Hariqbal Singh Bal, Applicant No one appearing

City of Ottawa OC Transpo, Respondent David Patacairk, 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 disability.

2The applicant is a bus operator and instructor employed by the respondent. The applicant alleges that the respondent has deemed him unfit for duty because of perceived restrictions arising out of a back injury. The applicant alleges that the respondent has refused to return him to work despite repeated reports from his doctors that he is able to return to work.

3The Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer, dated November 17, 2014, directing the parties to make submissions regarding whether the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of related grievance-arbitration proceedings.

4On December 17, 2014, the respondent filed submissions in which in requested dismissal of the Application because it submitted that the issues in the Application are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. The respondent noted that both the Ontario Court of Appeal and this Tribunal have found the respondent to be a federal undertaking.

5The Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, dated February 4, 2015, directing the applicant to file written submissions regarding the respondent’s jurisdictional objection by March 6, 2015. As of the date of this Decision, the applicant has not filed submissions regarding the respondent’s objection and the time for doing so has passed. Although not directed to do so, the respondent filed additional submissions on March 10, 2015.

Analysis and Decision

6An 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 Canadian Human Rights Commission 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.

7As the respondent submitted, the Tribunal has previously held that OC Transpo is a federally regulated transportation business that crosses provincial boundaries. See Morgan v. Ottawa (City), 2008 HRTO 145; Jarabek v. OC Transpo, 2009 HRTO 1466; Gololi v. OC Transpo, 2010 HRTO 1734; Ayoubloo v. OC Transpo, 2011 HRTO 1184; Ayotte v. Ottawa (City), 2011 HRTO 1456 and Hassan v. Ottawa (City), 2015 HRTO 71. In my view, it is plain and obvious that the respondent is a federally regulated undertaking and that this Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

8The Application is dismissed.