Jefferson v. D Copley and Son Transport Ltd., 2016 HRTO 152

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Whitney Jefferson

Applicant

-and-

D Copley and Son Transport Ltd., David Copley and Michael Copley

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: February 2, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 152 Indexed as: Jefferson v. D Copley and Son Transport Ltd.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

D Copley and Son Transport Ltd., David Copley and Michael Copley, Respondents

Douglas Sulman, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application in which he alleged that the respondents discriminated against him because of his race, disability and family status contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The corporate respondent is a trucking company and the applicant’s former employer.

2On November 16, 2015, the Tribunal sent the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“NOID”) the Application on the basis that it appeared that the corporate respondent is a federally-regulated employer. By e-mail dated December 11, 2015, the applicant’s counsel stated that the corporate respondent is an Ontario corporation carrying on business in Ontario. He claimed that an issue relating to the applicant’s severance was dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and asked for the basis for the NOID.

3By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated January 20, 2016, I advised the parties that the basis for the NOID was the fact that the applicant filed with his Application a decision of an Inspector appointed under the Canada Labour Code relating to payments owing to the applicant upon termination of his employment. The decision shows that the issue of severance/termination pay was dealt with under the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. L-2, which is federal legislation.

4In the CAD, I directed the parties to provide further submissions in response to the NOID. The respondents filed a Response indicating that they are in the business of hauling freight on international and interprovincial routes. The respondents submitted that the applicant attorned to federal jurisdiction by filing a complaint under the Canada Labour Code.

5The applicant did not file any further submissions in response to my CAD. Specifically, the applicant did not dispute any of the information contained in the respondents’ Response.

Analysis of jurisdictional issue

6It is well established that the 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 or international transportation is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Even companies incorporated under provincial law can be subject to federal human rights or labour laws, depending on the nature of the business. Companies that are engaged in interprovincial or international transportation are federally-regulated for the purposes of human rights laws.

7Based on the information provided by the respondents, which was not disputed by the applicant, it appears that the respondent engages in interprovincial and international transportation. Therefore, it is federally-regulated and therefore this Application falls outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

respondents’ request for costs

8I note that the respondents requested that the applicant reimburse them for their legal costs in responding to the Application. It is well-established that this Tribunal does not have the power to award legal costs: Dunn v. United Transportation Union, Local 104, 2008 HRTO 405.

order

9For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed. The respondents’ request for reimbursement of their legal costs is denied.