Paterson v. Thames Valley District School Board, 2015 HRTO 565

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Robert Paterson

Applicant

-and-

Thames Valley District School Board

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Date: May 5, 2015
Citation: 2015 HRTO 565
Indexed as: Paterson v. Thames Valley District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Robert Paterson, Applicant
Self-represented

Thames Valley District School Board, Respondent
Peter Thorup, Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondent’s request that the Tribunal dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”).

Factual Background

2In his Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him because of age contrary to the Code. Specifically, the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him by failing to grant him interviews in regards to 42 applications he filed for Long Term Occasional positions.

Respondent’s Request to Dismiss

3In its Response, the respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application under s. 45. 1 of the Code on the basis that an arbitral proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.

4The applicant opposes the respondent’s Request on the basis that the two issues in the proceedings are not the same.

Decision

5Section 45.1 of the Code states:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

6I find that the arbitral proceeding culminating in arbitrator Cummings’ award did not appropriately deal with the substance of the Application. The substance of the Application is the applicant’s claim that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age when it failed to grant him interviews for Long Term Occasional positions.

7The issue before arbitrator Cummings was whether the respondent failed to implement the requirements of a regulation under the Education Act relating to occasional teaching assignments in a timely way. Arbitrator Cummings did not deal with the applicant’s Code-related complaints as they were not part of the grievances that were before her. Therefore, I find that the arbitral proceeding did not deal with the substance of the Application.

ORDER

8For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Code is denied. Since both parties have agreed to mediation, the Registrar will schedule a mediation for this file.