Debra Minogue v. Peel District School Board, 2014 HRTO 839

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Debra Minogue

Applicant

-and-

Peel District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alison Renton

Date: June 9, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 839

Indexed as: Minogue v. Peel District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Debra Minogue, Applicant

Self-represented

Peel District School Board, Respondent

Roy Filion, Counsel

1In an Interim Decision dated November 21, 2013, 2013 HRTO 1919, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the resolution or conclusion of two grievances that were proceeding to arbitration.

2The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”) dated May 2, 2014 in which she seeks to re-activate her Application. She submits that one of the grievances that was proceeding to arbitration has been abandoned by her union. The other grievance which is at arbitration and which started in the fall of 2013 has continuation dates scheduled for November 2014 (“the continuing grievance”). Essentially, in support of her request to re-activate, the applicant submits that the continuing grievance is limited in scope and that the arbitrator appointed will not have knowledge of the other grievances that she has filed or of her other allegations in the Application. Further, she suggests that the union and the respondent have intentionally scheduled arbitration dates so far in the future to delay the process and unnecessarily delay her Application.

3The respondent filed a Response to the RFOP. In it, the respondent conceded that the arbitrator seized with the continuing grievance will not address all of the allegations in the Application and that it cannot argue that that these allegations should be deferred to arbitration. However, that part of the Application that pertains to the subject-matter of the continuing grievance ought to be deferred which supports a partial deferral of the Application. Further, the respondent notes that there remains an outstanding RFOP, as well as the respondent’s delay submissions contained within its Response.

4The applicant filed another RFOP dated May 21, 2014 in which she seeks to amend her Application, submits that the respondent’s Response to the RFOP is untimely, and submits that the Response to the RFOP should considered null and void.

5The applicant’s request for re-activation is denied.

6As both parties concede, the continuing grievance has continued arbitration dates scheduled for November 2014 and that some of the issues contained in the continuing grievance may overlap with some of the issues alleged in the Application.

7It does not make sense, in my opinion, to partially defer the Application given the other proceeding that is already underway. Accordingly, the Application is deferred pending the completion of the arbitration of the continuing grievance.

8The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process. In addition to other requirements, Rule 14.4 requires that a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 must be made no later than 60 days after the conclusion of the other proceeding. The Tribunal’s Rules are found on its website at www.hrto.ca.

9Given this ruling, at this stage of the process, it is not necessary to address the respondent’s request to dismiss because of delay and abuse of process and the applicant’s requests to amend the Application.

10I am not seized with this matter.