Aceto v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2013 HRTO 316

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Tina Aceto Applicant

-and-

Toronto Catholic District School Board Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel Date: February 26, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 316 Indexed as: Aceto v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Tina Aceto, Applicant Self-represented

Toronto Catholic District School Board, Respondent Sharon Duffy, Counsel

Toronto Elementary Catholic Teachers Association, Affected Party Victoria Hannah, Representative

Introduction

1The purpose of this Interim Decision is to determine whether this Application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance filed on behalf of the applicant.

2The applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against her contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code") when it refused to permit her to return from a medical leave as a full-time teacher on a half-time medical leave. The applicant also has filed a grievance raising this same issue.

3In its Response to the Application, the respondent requested a deferral pending the outcome of the grievance process. The respondent stated that the applicant's union and the respondent have engaged in discussions regarding the applicant's return to work. The respondent stated that it has been advised that the applicant's union is drafting a proposed Memorandum of Settlement pertaining to the issues raised in the grievance and in the Application.

4The applicant was advised of the respondent's deferral request. She was advised that the Tribunal would consider any submissions she filed in response to the respondent's request before determining how to proceed in this case.

Decision

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 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure). 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.

6It appears that there is a possibility that the issues raised in this Application will be resolved through the grievance process in this case. Even if these issues are not resolved prior to arbitration, proceeding with the Application could lead to inconsistent decisions on the facts and/or legal issues raised in the Application and grievance if the grievance proceeds to arbitration. As a result, I find it appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance process in this matter.

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 proceedings. The Rules of Procedure are available on the Tribunal's website, www.hrto.ca under "New Applications".

8I am not seized of this matter.