Baljinder Dhaliwal v. AMJ Campbell International and Rose Baptiste, 2015 HRTO 740

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Baljinder Dhaliwal Applicant

-and-

AMJ Campbell International and Rose Baptiste Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren Date: June 5, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 740 Indexed as: Dhaliwal v. AMJ Campbell International

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Baljinder Dhaliwal, Applicant Harjinder Badial, Representative

AMJ Campbell International and Rose Baptiste, Respondents René Liebs-Benke, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant was employed as an international document coordinator for the corporate respondent. The corporate respondent describes itself as a corporation that “provides international moving services to residential and commercial customers across the world coming into or leaving Canada”.

2The corporate respondent has requested that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally-regulated company engaged in the transportation of goods between provinces and countries. In support of these submissions, the corporate respondent included the job duties for the international document coordinator which includes: tracking sea and air shipment and status; the section of the employees’ handbook which directed employees who are not satisfied with the employer’s response to complaint of harassment to the Canadian Human Rights Commission; and the section of employees’ handbook that indicates that the respondent is a federally regulated company and is subject to the Canada Labour Code.

3The applicant responded to the corporate respondent’s request to dismiss by stating that the corporate respondent has not provided enough particulars or evidence to support its claim that it is under federal jurisdiction. However, the applicant has not disputed or provided her own evidence to dispute the corporate respondent’s claim.

4The Code only applies to matters that fall within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federal undertakings. Under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the regulation of interprovincial and international transportation is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

5Under the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, an Application will only be dismissed at this preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction. Based on the materials provided by the corporate respondent, I find that it is plain and obvious that the corporate respondent’s labour relations and any human rights issues relating to its labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction.

ORDER

6The Application is dismissed as outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It would appear that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) has jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim. If she wishes to pursue her claim she should file it with the CHRC.