Antropov v. Rogers Communications, 2016 HRTO 614

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Alexander Antropov

Applicant

-and-

Rogers Communications

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 614

Indexed as: Antropov v. Rogers Communications

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Alexander Antropov, Applicant

Self-represented

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of place of origin and ethnic origin.

2By letter dated March 14, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (‘NOID”) to the applicant, advising him that the Application may be outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because the respondent appears to be a federal government department, agency or a federally regulated service provider. The Tribunal directed the applicant to make submissions on the issue of jurisdiction no later than April 22, 2016.

3On April 20, 2016, the applicant filed submissions in response to the NOID. The applicant submitted that in Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381 the Tribunal noted that pursuant to the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) a respondent may only request dismissal without a full response in three circumstances, which do not include circumstances where the respondent appears to be a federally regulated entity. The applicant submitted that the respondent should be required to provide a full response. The applicant did not address the issue of whether the respondent is federally regulated.

Analysis and Decision

4An application will only be dismissed at a preliminary stage if it is “plain and obvious” on the face of the application that it does not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Masood v. Bruce Power, 2008 HRTO 381. The Code only applies to matters that come within provincial jurisdiction and does not apply to federally-regulated enterprises or undertakings.

5I note that in Masood, the Tribunal referred to an earlier iteration of the Rules. The Tribunal has since amended the Rules to allow a respondent to request early dismissal without a full Response where the issues in the Application are within exclusive federal jurisdiction. In any event, the Application has not been served on the respondent and the respondent did not request early dismissal. Rather, the Tribunal issued the NOID on its own initiative because it appears the Application is outside of its jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 13.2.

6In my view, it is plain and obvious that the respondent is a federally regulated service provider. The Tribunal has consistently found that the respondent is federally regulated. See Syed v. Rogers Communications, 2012 HRTO 248; Dougan v. Rogers Communications, 2009 HRTO 1169; and Steward v. Rogers Communications Ltd., 2015 HRTO 1159. This view is supported by federal human right law. See Conte v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd., 1999 CanLII 1022 (C.H.R.T.) and Pezzente v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2005 FC 953. Consequently, it is plain and obvious that the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

7The Application is dismissed.