minicounsel

Patricia Bristow

Applicant

-and-

District School Board Ontario North East

Respondent

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: November 26, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2211

Indexed as: Bristow v. District School Board Ontario North East

Patricia Bristow, Applicant

Self-represented

District School Board Ontario North East, Respondents

Kathryn J. Bird, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

2This Application was deferred in 2009 HRTO 636 pending the completion of a grievance arbitration hearing which has concluded with a decision released on September 12, 2012. The applicant has filed a Request for Order During Proceeding (Form 10) requesting that this Application be reactivated because she disagrees with the arbitrator’s decision. The applicant also believes that it did not deal with all the issues she raised in the Application. The respondent opposes the applicant’s Request and submits on the contrary that the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45. 1 of the Code because the arbitration hearing appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

[3] The Application is re-activated. The Tribunal will consider the respondent’s request that the Application be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, which reads as follows: “The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application”. The applicant may wish to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Figliola, 2011 SCC 52, and the Tribunal’s decision in Gomez v. Sobeys Milton Retail Support Centre, 2011 HRTO 2297.

Direction

[4] The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first. The parties shall make argument about whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. No witnesses will give evidence during the hearing.

3I am not seized of this case.

Dated at Toronto, this 26th day of November, 2012.

”signed by”

David Muir

Vice-chair

Patricia Bristow v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2012 HRTO 2211

Case Summary

[4] The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first. The parties shall make argument about whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. No witnesses will give evidence during the hearing.

Patricia Bristow v. District School Board Ontario North East, 2012 HRTO 2211

Case Summary

[4] The Tribunal’s Registrar will schedule a half-day hearing by teleconference. The applicant will proceed first. The parties shall make argument about whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code. No witnesses will give evidence during the hearing.