Gollan v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc., 2017 HRTO 1584

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Clarice Gollan

Applicant

-and-

Rogers Communications Canada Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: November 29, 2017

Citation: 2017 HRTO 1584

Indexed as: Gollan v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Clarice Gollan, Applicant

Kathy Kreidl, Representative

Rogers Communications Canada Inc., Respondent

Israel Balter, Counsel

1This Application, filed under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and sex.

2The Tribunal delivered the Application to the respondent. On August 24, 2017, the respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an order dismissing the Application because the respondent is a federally regulated entity and therefore outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. By letter dated October 11, 2017, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (‘NOID”) to the applicant, advising her 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 November 10, 2017.

3The applicant submitted that she is not certain of whether the respondent falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction. The applicant submitted that the incidents in questions occurred in Ontario and that the Tribunal accepted the Application. The applicant’s representative submitted that she is concerned about how her daughter, the applicant, was treated, not how the respondent is registered as a business.

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. The Tribunal may not deal with matters not within its jurisdiction and whether an application has been “accepted” or delivered to a respondent are not relevant considerations.

5In 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 (CHRT), 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.

6The Application is dismissed.