HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Debra Minogue
Applicant
-and-
Peel District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Maureen Doyle
Indexed as: Minogue v. Peel District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Debra Minogue, Applicant
Self-represented
Peel District School Board, Respondent
Roy Filion, Counsel
1This Application, filed July 31, 2013, alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and alleges reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2This Interim Decision addresses several Requests for Order During Proceedings filed by the Applicant.
Background
3The applicant is a teacher at the respondent Peel District School Board (the “Board”). In her Application, the applicant alleges that on April 10, 2012, she initiated an internal complaint at the respondent Board. This “Workplace Harassment and Objectionable Behaviour” complaint was investigated by a third party, DB. The applicant alleges that on May 31, 2013, she discovered that JU, a superintendent at the respondent, made a comment in the course of DB’s investigation of her complaint, indicating that the superintendent was “concerned mental illness may be involved” and that the superintendent “would like to see the Board insist on an independent medical with her”. She also alleges that JU has stated that “no one will hire her” and that her professional reputation has been irreparably damaged. She alleges that the statements made by JU were attempts by JU to “justify the long list of bullying harassing and objectionable behaviour she has inflicted” and the “false allegations of insubordination, denial of opportunity for professional development, advancement and promotion that she has personally facilitated for purely personal and malicious reasons”.
4She also alleges that a principal contacted her while she was in class on October 14, 2011, and berated her over the phone about her qualifications. She also alleges that on February 24, 2012, the principal confronted her in the hallway of the school and yelled at her. She also alleges that on April 2, 2012, the principal “physically obstructed” her passage into the back office area. She alleges that she was humiliated and upset by these encounters and that she complained about this to the investigator DB but that he did not contact any witnesses to confirm her allegations. She also alleges that another principal had called her principal about her in September 2011 and she asserts that DB should have contacted that principal and “the Human Rights Officer”. She also indicates that three related grievances were filed and that JU was “intentionally and unfairly appointed to the grievance committee” by the respondent Board. She alleges that her former principal and JU conferred with each other in a “concerted effort to deny any opportunity for advancement” with the Board.
5The applicant also alleges that JU made a statement to Peel regional Police in early June 2012 concerning a report of a break-in, stating that the applicant was “unfit to teach”. The applicant contends that this is “supporting evidence” and alleges that the statement reflects JU’s “highly subjective perception of a perceived disability”.
6Additionally, while not in the narrative portion of her Application, the applicant alleges that the effects on her of the above-noted events included discrimination against her when other teachers were permitted to choose from available teaching positions but she was not, and that a Board policy (“Policy #2”) was “maliciously and clandestinely deleted” by the Board and by DB and would have protected her interests when she was accused of insubordination.
7Elsewhere in her Application, she alleges that she experienced discrimination “on multiple occasions when applying to administrative positions” and asserts that JU has “attempted to explain her discriminatory treatment of me by her false perception of alleged mental illness”. She also alleges that JU was advised by a Physician’s note that “further excessive changes to my teaching position (administrative moves) would be detrimental to my health. This was completely ignored by her”.
8By way of remedy, she indicates that she seeks both financial compensation and to have her personnel file expunged of all negative references, restoration of her “personal and professional reputation” and immediate appointment to the position of vice principal at her school.
9The applicant also makes several allegations about her union, but the union is not a party to this Application and those allegations will not be recounted