Passarelli v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, 2016 HRTO 305

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: Douglas Sanderson Date: March 8, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 305 Indexed as: Passarelli v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Rema Passarelli, Applicant Self-represented

Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, Respondent No one appearing

Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, Intervenor No one appearing

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability. This Interim Decision deals with the applicant’s renewed request to reactivate this Application.

2In an earlier Interim Decision in this matter, Passarelli v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, 2014 HRTO 964, dated July 2, 2014, the Tribunal deferred this Application pending conclusion of a related grievance-arbitration proceeding. In Passarelli v. Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, 2015 HRTO 393, dated March 26, 2015, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to reactivate this Application because the proceeding to which it was deferred, a labour arbitration, was not completed.

3On January 22, 2015, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings again requesting reactivation of this Application. The applicant also identified several issues arising out her employment relationship with the respondent and requested that the Tribunal provide her with guidance regarding these issues. Neither the respondent nor the intervenor responded to this request and the time for doing so has passed.

Analysis and Decision

4While the applicant again requested reactivation of this Application, she provided no information regarding the status of the labour arbitration proceeding to which this matter was deferred. In particular, there is no indication that the labour arbitration has been concluded. Consequently, continued deferral of this Application remains appropriate for the reasons set out in the previous Interim Decisions in this matter.

5The applicant set out a long list of issues that have arisen with the respondent after she filed this Application, including, amongst other things, alleged violations of privacy laws and the Teaching Profession Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.2, misreporting to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and Service Canada, concerns about her union representation and concerns about evidence given at the labour arbitration proceeding. The applicant asks the Tribunal to give her guidance about these issues, but that is not the Tribunal’s mandate. The Tribunal is a neutral body and its jurisdiction is limited to adjudicating allegations of violations of the Code. Accordingly, it appears that most of these issues are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. To the extent these issues raise human rights concerns, the applicant may request to amend her Application to include these issues – following the conclusion of the labour arbitration proceeding and the reactivation of this Application.

Order

6The request to reactivate the hearing is denied.

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.

8I am not seized.