Janette Blais v. Ottawa Carleton District School Board, 2014 HRTO 1739

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Janette Blais

Applicant

-and-

Ottawa Carleton District School Board

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: December 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1739

Indexed as: Blais v. Ottawa Carleton District School Board

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). A grievance had also been filed about the same issues as those raised in the Application.

2The Application was deferred pending conclusion of the grievance/arbitration process pursuant to Interim Decision, 2013 HRTO 678, dated April 23, 2013. At para. 11 of the Interim Decision, the Tribunal advised that a party who wished to proceed with a deferred application, must file a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) within 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. See Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure (“the Rules”).

3By letter dated March 30, 2014, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting a status update of her grievance within 30 days of the letter. The letter was sent to the applicant’s home address that the Tribunal had on file. The applicant did not respond to the letter and the letter was not returned to the Tribunal as being undeliverable.

4By letter dated April 4, 2014, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (“the union”) wrote to the Tribunal advising that the grievance had been withdrawn. It also provided an updated address for the applicant.

5The Tribunal sent another letter, dated August 1, 2014, to the applicant at the address provided by the union, requesting a status update about her grievance. The applicant responded to this letter, stating that her grievance was still pending. The Tribunal sent an email dated August 5, on which the respondent and the union were copied, requiring the applicant to immediately confirm her current mailing address and phone number. The applicant did not respond to this direction.

6The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction dated August 15, 2014 (“the August CAD”), noting the inconsistent information about the applicant’s grievance, and requesting further information about the status of the grievance. The parties were directed to provide more detailed information about the status of the applicant’s grievance, including, the stages that it had advanced to, whether it had been referred to arbitration and if so the date(s) set for the arbitration, and/or a copy of the material withdrawing the grievance, including the date on which the grievance had been withdrawn. The Tribunal stated that it would be helpful if the union filed submissions too. The parties, and the union, were directed to file submissions by September 5, 2014. The applicant was also directed to provide her contact information by the same date.

7Another Case Assessment Direction, dated September 12, 2014 (“the September CAD”), was issued by the Tribunal. In it, the Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had provided her contact information and the respondent and the union had informed the Tribunal that the applicant’s grievance was withdrawn by the union by letter dated June 6, 2013. The union provided the Tribunal with a copy of the letter. The applicant had not provided any submissions or information in relation to the status of the grievance, subsequent to the August CAD.

8In the September CAD, the Tribunal directed the applicant to indicate whether she intends to file a Request to Re-activate and actually file the Request, and provide an explanation about why the Request was not filed within 60 days of June 6, 2013, the date the union’s letter withdrawing the grievance. The applicant was given 14 days from the September CAD to file submissions, and warned that if she did not comply with these directions, her Application would be dismissed as abandoned. The September CAD was sent to the applicant by both email and regular mail.

9The Tribunal received a voicemail message from the applicant on September 22, 2014 stating that the grievance is withdrawn “when a person is on LTD” and she was requesting that the Application be placed on hold. She also stated that she had not received the September CAD, so another copy was again emailed and sent by regular mail. The applicant did not file any submissions in response to the September CAD either before or after September 22, 2014.

10Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules requires that a party can request re-activation of a deferred Application within 60 days from the date the other proceeding ends. Given that the union withdrew the grievance by letter dated June 6, 2013, the applicant has not filed a Request to Re-activate within 60 days, as Rule 14.4 requires, and has not filed any submissions as directed in the September CAD, the Application is dismissed as abandoned.