Antinello v. Cole Carriers Corp., 2016 HRTO 1155

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Nicole Antinello Applicant

-and-

Cole Carriers Corp. Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: August 31, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 1155 Indexed as: Antinello v. Cole Carriers Corp.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Cole Carriers Corp., Respondent K.C. Wysynski, Counsel

1This Decision addresses whether the subject matter of this Application falls under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The applicant filed this Application alleging the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Code. In its Response, the respondent submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction in this matter because it is a federally-regulated, inter-provincial transportation company subject to federal jurisdiction.

3By Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal sought further information from the respondent to support its dismissal request. The Tribunal also sought reply submissions from the applicant.

4The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Parts and Inventory Control Clerk at its Hamilton repair yard. According to the respondent, in this role, she was responsible for ensuring that the necessary parts were available for all scheduled and emergency repairs conducted in the Hamilton yard. The Hamilton yard serves equipment used both in international and local shipping. The applicant was also responsible for processing purchase orders, invoices and payments for third party repairs to the respondent’s equipment carried out in both the United States and Canada.

5The materials filed by the respondent show that it transports goods by land, including across the border between Canada and the United States. According to the respondent, it ships goods internationally on a daily basis, multiple times per day.

6The applicant did not reply to the respondent’s submissions.

FINDINGS

7The transportation of goods beyond the limits of a province is an activity that falls under federal jurisdiction under the Constitution Act, 1867: see ss. 92(1)(a) and 91(29). As long as the inter-provincial or international transportation is regular and continuous, it will be found to fall under federal jurisdiction. See A.T.U., Local 279 v. Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Commission (1983), 1983 CanLII 1936 (ON CA), 44 O.R. (2d) 560 (C.A.).

8Based on the information provided by the respondent, which has not been disputed by the applicant, the respondent is engaged in regular and continuous transportation of goods beyond provincial boundaries. As a result, its operations fall under federal jurisdiction. No information has been filed with the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant was employed in any distinct or functionally discrete unit that did not form part of the respondent’s general international transportation operations.

ORDER

9For all these reasons, this Application is dismissed as it falls under federal jurisdiction.