HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Melissa Micucci
Applicant
-and-
Toronto Catholic District School Board and Betty Stavropoulos
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren
Indexed as: Micucci v. Toronto Catholic District School Board
APPEARANCES
Melissa Micucci, Applicant
Gillian Vivona, Representative
Toronto Catholic District School Board, Respondent
Melissa L. Arruda, Counsel
1This Application was filed on February 9, 2016, and alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and sex contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2While the applicant was on a maternity leave from her employment, she was injured in a car accident. As a result of the injury, she was not able to return to work at the end of her maternity leave. She alleges that she experienced a breach of her Code rights when she was denied access to the sick leave/short-term leave and disability plan (“SSP”). The Board respondent had a practice of requiring employees to physically return to the workplace at the end of the statutory maternity leave as a pre-condition of attempting to access the SSP.
3When the applicant was denied access to the SSP, her union filed a grievance against the Board respondent on her behalf.
4The grievance was resolved through Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) signed on January 19, 2016. A term of the MOS reads, “The Board agrees that employees with a scheduled date to return to work from a statutory maternity leave will not be denied access to the sick leave/short-term disability plan as of the scheduled return date, solely as a result of not physically returning to the workplace.”
5The Board respondent made a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Request”) that this Application be dismissed on the basis that the grievance proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of this Application.
6On October 4, 2016, the applicant filed a Request to amend her application to add further allegations of Code breaches by the Board respondent. The applicant wishes to add the following allegations:
As of her return to work, she was denied medical benefits. It was her understanding that these benefits would be re-instated on September 6, 2016 when she returned to work.
She was not reimbursed for the cost of obtaining two medical notes that she submitted by fax and was told she would only reimbursed if she provides originals of the notes.
7In response to the applicant’s Request to amend, the Board respondent stated that the applicant signed a benefit re-instatement form on September 9, 2016 and her medical benefits were activated on October 1, 2016. The Board respondent further states that its Employee Expenses policy requires all employees to submit original receipts with the expense form.
Request to Amend
8The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcement of the Code which prohibits discrimination in specific areas (for example, employment, services, contracts, etc.) on the basis of specific protected grounds listed in the Code such as age, race, marital status or disability. The Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code or to inquire into administrative errors.
9The allegations that the applicant wishes to add to the Application through this request to amend appear to be administrative errors or administrative processing requirements. The applicant has not provided any facts that could support a claim that the alleged unfairness she experienced is connected to her disability or sex or that this amounts to reprisal.
10I find it plain and obvious that these allegations do not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
11For these reasons, the Request to Amend is denied.
HAS ANOTHER PROCEEDING APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION
12Section 45.1 of the Code reads as follows:
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.
13The Board respondent argues that the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the Application.
14The Board respondent has stated that as a result of the settlement it has reimbursed the applicant for her lost sick days, and for the out of pocket expenses she incurred as a result of being denied the SSP. She was also provided her full allotment of SSP days.
15The applicant states that she was not consulted on the settlement agreement and she did not sign the agreement.
16The applicant does not deny that she received the items outlined in paragraph 14 above. She states that is was a struggle to get them and there was a great delay which caused her increased stress. She also submits that the grievance outlined many more remedies that were not part of the MOS.
17The MOS states, “The parties agree that the remedies sought in the Grievances are withdrawn immediately.”
18The Board respondent maintains that even if the applicant was not a signatory to the MOS, the union had full authority to negotiate a settlement on her behalf. The Board respondent maintains that the allegations made in this Application were the substance of the grievance and as a result the Application should be dismissed as the grievance has appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
19The Tribunal has held that, in determining whether an application ought to be dismissed pursuant to s. 45.1 of the Code, it ought to consider: (1) whether there was another “proceeding” and (2) if so, whether it “appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application”.
20It is well established in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that settlements of grievances referred to arbitration constitute “proceedings” for the purpose of section 45.1 of the Code.
21The Tribunal places a high value on the finality of litigation, judicial economy and the recognition of the jurisdiction of other adjudicative bodies under the Code. The Tribunal’s jurisprudence is clear that in making a determination of whether a matter has been appropriately dealt with, the issue is not whether the applicant has received the result and remedy that she was hoping for. See Sikorski v. Vaughan (City), 2015 HRTO 1740 at para. 15 and Taylor v. Hamilton (City), 2013 HRTO 1591.
22It is uncontested that the grievance arbitration process dealt with the same facts and subject matter as the Application.
23I find that the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the Application.
ORDER
24The applicant’s request to amend the Application is denied.
25The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 29th day of December, 2016.
“Signed By”
Laurie Letheren
Vice-chair