Choate v. Walker’s/Capital Group of Companies Ltd., 2015 HRTO 874

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Emerson Choate

Applicant

-and-

Walker’s/Capital Group of Companies Ltd. and Glenn Warner

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: June 30, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 874

Indexed as: Choate v. Walker’s/Capital Group of Companies Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Emerson Choate, Applicant

Self-represented

Walker’s/Capital Group of Companies Ltd. and Glenn Warner, Respondents

Glenn Warner, Representative

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On February 24, 2015, the respondents filed a Response that contained a request to dismiss the Application because the organizational respondent is a federally regulated company and the issues in dispute in the Application are within federal jurisdiction.

3The Tribunal sent the Response and Notice of Request to Dismiss to the applicant. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on the issue of whether the organizational respondent is a federally regulated enterprise.

4The Applicant sent an email to the respondents and the Tribunal on June 22, 2015. The email repeated the applicant’s allegations that the respondents had infringed his Code rights but did contain any submissions on whether the issues in dispute are within the federal jurisdiction.

RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS

5The respondents submit that the organizational respondents is a common carrier engaged in the business of transporting goods such as furniture, wares and merchandise across Canada and the United States. The applicant was a broker for the organizational respondent. As such, he used his own equipment to transport goods across Canada and the United States.

6Attached to the respondents’ submissions was a “Company/Broker Agreement” that outlined the terms under which the applicant was to use his own equipment to provide transportation and related services to the organizational respondent. This agreement described the organizational respondent as a transporter of goods throughout Canada and the United States. The respondents also attached a Certificate of Amalgamation made under the Canadian Business Corporations Act and issued by Industry Canada in 2003.

DECISION

7Pursuant to subsection 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, transportation works and undertakings that extend beyond the limits of a province are within federal jurisdiction. As the applicant made no submissions, there is nothing before me to contradict the respondents’ position that the organizational respondent transports goods across provincial and international borders. The documents provided by the respondents also appear to support this position.

8In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the organizational respondent is a federally regulated company. Therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with this Application and it is dismissed. It would appear that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”) may have jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim. If he wishes to pursue his claim, the applicant should file it with the CHRC.

ORDER

9The Application is dismissed.