Anna Petroccia v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2012 HRTO 585

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Anna Petroccia

Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: March 21, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 585

Indexed as: Petroccia v. Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board

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”). This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

2On December 8, 2011, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Intent to Defer to the parties indicating that the Tribunal had determined that it might be appropriate to defer consideration of the Application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding dealing with the subject-matter of the Application. The Tribunal directed the parties to deliver and file any written submissions which they wished to make in respect of the deferral issue within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Intent to Defer.

3The applicant indicates in the Application that the facts of the Application are part of a union grievance proceeding that is still in progress, and encloses a copy of the grievance filed on her behalf by her union, the Ontario English Catholic Teacher’s Association (the “union”).

4The applicant did not file submissions with respect to the deferral issue in response to the Tribunal’s Notice of Intent to Defer. The respondent takes the position that the Application should be deferred on the basis that the issues in the grievance and Application are the same, the applicant’s grievance has advanced to arbitration and the hearing is in process.

5The Tribunal may defer consideration of an Application on such terms as it may determine, on its own initiative or at the request of any party (Rule 14.1). Deferral of an Application seeks to ensure that proceedings dealing with the same facts or issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. The Tribunal will generally defer an Application where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues. However, the Tribunal must also consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the application.

6Some, if not all, of the facts and issues raised in this Application are part of a grievance and arbitration process that is still in progress. Both the Application and the grievance relate to the accommodation of the applicant’s medical condition and restrictions. Since the issues in the Application and the grievances overlap significantly, proceeding with the Application at the Tribunal could very possibly lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and the grievance. The primary purpose of deferring an Application is to avoid such potential inconsistency. I find that, in all of the circumstances, deferring the Application is appropriate.

7The parties’ attention is drawn to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, which address how the Application may be brought back on before the Tribunal, following conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal’s website, www.hrto.ca under “New Applications”.

8I am not seized.