Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
B E T W E E N:
Raj Pannu
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board
Respondent
and b e t w e e n :
Raj Pannu
Applicant
-and-
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario
Respondent
CASE RESOLUTION Conference DECISION
Adjudicator: Jim Dimovski
Indexed as: Pannu v. Peel District School Board
AppearanceS BY
Raj Pannu, Applicant ) Self-represented
Peel District School Board ) Roy C. Filion, Respondent ) Counsel
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario ) Mark Wright, Respondent ) Counsel
Decision
1These Applications were filed under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The underlying complaints in this matter were filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) on March 5, 2007.
2In her Applications, the applicant alleges that the respondent employer, Peel District School Board (the “Board”), breached the Code by not providing her suitable employment which accommodated her disability. She also alleges that the respondent Union, the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (the “Union”), failed to accommodate her by accepting her employer’s justification for not providing her a job within her restrictions.
3On December 8, 2009, a preliminary hearing took place in order to determine the respondents’ Request that the Applications should be dismissed for a variety of reasons. In particular, the responding parties submitted that the substance of the applicant’s allegations were appropriately dealt within a grievance proceeding, which resulted in settlement. As such, the respondents argue her Applications before the Tribunal should be dismissed in accordance with s. 45.1 of the Code.
4After reviewing the parties’ submissions and reviewing the evidence, I find that the Applications before the Tribunal are dismissed in accordance with s. 45.1 of the Code. My reasons are set out below.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
5At the outset of the hearing, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal should not consider the Union’s written reply submissions, dated November 4, 2009. She argued that she had received the Union’s reply to her submissions in response to this Request on November 10, 2009, and as such, the Union breached the deadline for providing such materials set by the Tribunal. Among other things, she indicated that this caused her unnecessary stress. The Union denied that it had breached the Tribunal’s deadline.
6I denied the applicant’s request. I indicated, even if she was correct and the Union had breached the deadline, I did not find any particular prejudice in considering the Union’s reply submissions since she had ample time to consider it and prepare her position in response to it, prior to her oral submissions before the Tribunal.
BACKGROUND
7On September 1, 1995, the applicant was hired by the Board as an elementary school teacher. As a result, she became a member of the Union.
8From approximately October 1998 until May 2006, the applicant was away from work on a medical leave of absence due to disability.
9After some time, the applicant’s physician recommended that she return on a work trial basis, within restrictions, as of April 1, 2005. Her restrictions included a prohibition on working in a school more than ten kilometres from her home and a requirement that she only work within a mature student setting.
10The parties met to determine an appropriate work placement for the applicant. That meeting was unsuccessful and the Union, on the applicant’s behalf, filed a grievance pursuant to the Collective Agreement. The grievance, dated October 25, 2005, claimed the applicant was being “disciplined without just cause and that the Board had failed to meet its obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code and Collective Agreement”.
11The Board denied the grievance on the basis that the positions identified by the Union violated the applicant’s restrictions and thus were not suitable.
12The applicant’s grievance was scheduled to be heard before Arbitrator Stanley Beck. As a result of the process, the parties agreed to settle in accordance with terms as set out in Minutes of Settlement, dated April 28, 2006 (the “2006 Minutes of Settlement”).
13By signing the 2006 Minutes of Settlement, the Board agreed to provide the applicant an English as a Second Language (ESL) assignment at a particular school for the balance of the 2005/2006 school year. The placement was to be provided, as noted, in addition to the normal staff complement of the school and for the purpose of providing a trial period in order to allow the Board to “determine whether the Grievor is able to meet the professional standards and obligations of a Teacher within that timeframe”. Pending completion of the trial period, the arbitration proceeding was adjourned without setting a date, for a period not longer than two years while the parties attempted to determine a permanent placement.
14After the applicant completed the 2005/06 school year as an ESL instructor, the Board claims it was not able to find a suitable placement as an ESL instructor, which they claim was the only position the applicant would accept, for the 2006/07 school year as a result of the limited number of potential schools within the applicant’s travel restrictions