HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Rema Passarelli
Applicant
-and-
Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board
Respondent
-and-
Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association
Intervenor
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané
Indexed as: Passarelli v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Rema Passarelli, Applicant
Self-represented
Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, Respondent
Margot Blight, Counsel
Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, Intervenor
Jerry Raso, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2On April 9, 2014, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer.
3The respondent filed submissions in support of deferral and the applicant filed submissions opposing the deferral. The Intervenor takes no position on the issue of deferral.
DECISION
4In her submissions the applicant opposes the deferral of the Application for a number of reasons including that the grievance is not proceeding expeditiously and that the issues raised in the two proceedings are distinct.
5The respondent states that arbitration hearing dates are scheduled on July 2, 2014 and September 5, 2014.
6The 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). The Tribunal must consider, in light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether deferral is the most fair, just and expeditious way of proceeding with the Application.
7Applying these principles to this case, I find that it is appropriate to defer this Application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings. The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. In explaining this approach, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that grievance arbitrators have not only the power but also the responsibility to implement and enforce the substantive rights and obligations of human rights and other employment-related statutes as if they were part of the collective agreement (Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42).
8In this case, it is apparent that there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those referred to in the grievance. It would not be constructive to have two proceedings consider concurrently the same facts as this may lead to contrary findings and decisions.
9Therefore, it is most fair, just and expeditious to defer this Application. The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.
10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rule 14 which sets out the procedure if a party wishes to proceed with an Application that has been deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
11I am not seized.
Dated at Toronto, this 2nd day of July, 2014.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair