Hicks v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, 2013 HRTO 814

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Darrell Hicks

Applicant

-and-

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

Respondent

-and-

OECTA (Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association)

Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 814

Indexed as: Hicks v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

APPEARANCES

Darrell Hicks, Applicant

Self-represented

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, Respondent

Margot Blight, Counsel

OECTA (Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association), Intervenor

Jerry Raso, Counsel

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 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.

2In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, 2013 HRTO 594, the Tribunal dismissed a Request by the applicant for particulars, but allowed his Request to amend the Application. The Tribunal also granted OECTA’s Request to intervene. The Tribunal also dealt with the respondent’s Request to defer the Application, pending the outcome of two grievances dated August 28, 2011 and September 20, 2012, under the collective agreement between the respondent and the intervenor. The Tribunal noted that the subject-matter of the grievances appears to overlap significantly with the subject-matter of the Application and that the Tribunal has generally deferred applications in such circumstances. The Tribunal also noted, however, that the status of the grievance was not clear on the material filed by the parties. The Tribunal therefore directed the parties to inform the parties of the status of any grievances concerning the subject-matter of the Application, including the current schedule of events for the resolution of the grievances.

3The parties indicated that a Step 2 meeting was held on April 30, 2013 and the respondent has until May 7, 2013 to provide its response in writing in respect of the grievance dated September 20, 2012 regarding the applicant’s return to work. The intervenor submitted that it undertook to refer the matter to grievance arbitration within five days of receipt of the respondent’s decision, should the respondent reject the grievance. The respondent submitted that the grievance dated August 28, 2011 is currently at arbitration and that continuation dates have been scheduled for January 8, February 11 and April 8, 2014. The applicant and respondent identified a third grievance related to the applicant’s short term disability benefits, which the respondent stated that it received on March 18, 2013. The respondent submitted that it denied the grievance at Step 1 on March 20, 2013 and anticipates that the grievance shall proceed to Step 2.

4Accordingly, none of the grievances addressing similar facts and issues as this Application has been concluded and the parties continue to pursue them. In these circumstances, I see no reason to depart from the Tribunal’s usual practice to defer pending the conclusion of related grievances. The Application is deferred.

5The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.