Petroccia v. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 1638

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Anna Petroccia Applicant

-and-

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board Respondent

-and-

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association Intervenor

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Bruce Best Date: December 2, 2015 Citation: 2015 HRTO 1638 Indexed as: Petroccia v. Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Anna Petroccia, Applicant Self-represented

Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, Respondent John-Paul Alexandrowicz and Dianne Jozefacki, Counsel

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, Intervenor Jerry Raso, Counsel

1This Interim Decision deals with the issue of whether the Application should be deferred. The respondent notes that the applicant’s union, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (the “union”) has filed grievances which overlap considerably with the facts, issues and remedies raised in the Application, and on that basis asks that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process.

2The applicant objects to deferral. She claims that despite having pursued multiple grievances and arbitrations in the past, the respondent continues to deny her rights, and suggests that it may take a decision from the Tribunal in order for this to change.

3The union takes no position on the respondent’s request to defer.

4The Tribunal has generally deferred applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues. With respect to the applicant’s claim that previous grievances have not resulted in the changes she wishes to see, I note 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; see Parry Sound (District) Social Services Administration Board v. O.P.S.E.U., Local 324, 2003 SCC 42.

5In this case, there is substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues covered by the Application and those raised in the grievance. It is not yet apparent whether or not the applicant’s grievance will be referred to arbitration. If the applicant believes, on conclusion of the grievance process, that her human rights issues have not been adequately addressed, she may ask to have her Application brought back on before the Tribunal.

6The Application will therefore be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

7The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of the grievance process.