Jenna Elberson v. Channel Zero Inc., 2015 HRTO 758

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jenna Elberson Applicant

-and-

Channel Zero Inc. Respondent

Decision

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: June 9, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 758 Indexed As: Elberson v. Channel Zero Inc.

Appearances

Jenna Elberson, Applicant No one appearing

Channel Zero, Respondent Bruce Cowley, Representative

1The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In its Response, the respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the respondent’s operations fall under federal jurisdiction. In support of its request, the respondent relied on the fact that it is engaged in interprovincial broadcasting, and upon a letter to the applicant in which it advised her that if she was terminated, severance pay would be in accordance with the Canada Labour Code.

3The applicant filed a Form 11 Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings acknowledging that the respondent’s business is interprovincial broadcasting, which is a federally-regulated activity. However, she also submits that it is not definitive that because the respondent is engaged in interprovincial broadcasting that the employees in the marketing department also are subject to federal regulation.

4The applicant submits that while the marketing work is done within an organization that is engaged in interprovincial broadcasting, the marketing is separate from the broadcasting work and is not an integral part of that work.

5In a Case Assessment Direction issued on March 4, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be held to hear further submissions on the respondent’s request.

6On March 12, 2015 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Preliminary Issue Hearing to the parties confirming that hearing would take place on June 2, 2015, commencing at 9:30 a.m. by telephone conference call.

7I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

8The applicant was not on the conference call at the commencement of the scheduled hearing. The respondent attended on the call. In accordance with its usual practice, the Tribunal waited until 10:00 a.m. before proceeding.

9At 10:00 a.m. the applicant was not on the conference nor had the applicant communicated with the Tribunal to explain the failure to attend.

10In the circumstances, the Application was dismissed at the preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the Application.