Jewlal v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2014 HRTO 523

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Angela Jewlal

Applicant

-and-

Thames Valley District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: April 11, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 523

Indexed as: Jewlal v. Thames Valley District School Board

APPEARANCES

Angela Jewlal, Applicant

Michael Klug, Counsel

Thames Valley District School Board, Respondent

Peter Thorup, Counsel

1In a previous Interim Decision, Jewlal v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1276, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending the conclusion of a grievance filed by the applicant’s union the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (the “union”).

2On February 5, 2014, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking reactivation of the Application because the grievance had been withdrawn. On February 13, 2014, the respondent filed a Response to a Request for an Order opposing reactivation. The respondent submitted that on February 10, 2014 the union advised it that the grievance had not been withdrawn and would not be until the placement and accommodation for the applicant regarding the next school year was complete. In a letter dated February 18, 2014, counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant was in communication with the union regarding the status of the grievance and, accordingly, requested that the Tribunal defer determination of the reactivation request. By e-mail message to the Tribunal dated March 17, 2014, counsel for the applicant stated that he had not received information from either the union or respondent indicating that the grievance had not been withdrawn and therefore maintained that the Application should be reactivated. In a letter dated March 18, 2014, counsel for the respondent reiterated that the grievance had not been withdrawn.

Decision

3In her Request, the applicant pointed to an e-mail message from a union official indicated that the grievance would be withdrawn in the absence of other medical documentation. The applicant did not provide any document confirming that the grievance has in fact been withdrawn and in light of the submissions of respondent’s counsel there is no proper basis on which to conclude that the union withdrew the grievance.

4In these circumstances, the request to reactivate is denied.