‘Not fair’: Tribunal says allowing re-litigation would cover same underlying facts and answer twice for same conduct
After a car accident in August 2014, a Halton Catholic District School Board teacher was denied access to a new bank of 11 sick days and 120 sick leave days.
Her employer treated the injury as a pre-existing condition.
On Feb. 18, 2026, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the disability discrimination claim related to the sick leave denial, ruling that the teacher had impermissibly split her case by pursuing those same allegations at the tribunal after settling them through a union grievance.
Accident followed separate injury
The board refused to recognize the 2014 car accident as a new and separate injury from one sustained in July 2012, when an object fell on the teacher’s head at a retail store, injuring her neck and back.
Despite new medical documentation submitted in August, October and November 2014, the board denied her access to a fresh sick leave bank, insisting the later injury was a pre-existing condition.
The teacher’s union, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, asserted that the board “has its facts wrong: while the grievor does suffer from a previous head injury, the grievor was injured again."
The union further argued that the board's interpretation of this clause “is discriminatory on the basis of the member's disability, which is also contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code."
In a separate case, a teacher complained about air quality issues, so her employer moved the worker to a safer room. But the teacher felt the move was retaliation for her safety complaint and filed a complaint. Ultimately, the court sided with the employer.
Sick pay grievance settled
The sick pay grievance, along with grievances over pension credits and health plan benefits, was settled through mediation before arbitrator Brian Keller in June 2021. The Minutes of Settlement included a full and final release but carved out the teacher’s outstanding Human Rights Tribunal application.
She argued the carve-out was deliberately negotiated to allow the sick leave discrimination claims to proceed at the tribunal. The board countered that it was inserted only because she refused to settle the application, and was neither an endorsement of those claims nor a concession they had merit.
Adjudicator Rosamaria Longo sided with the board.
"By the carve-out, the applicant seeks to continue with her application and advance the very same allegations that were settled in the sick leave grievance. This, in my view, amounts to impermissible case splitting," she wrote.
Re-litigation would cover same facts
Longo found the sick leave grievance had explicitly raised Human Rights Code disability discrimination allegations and that settling the grievance resolved those issues. She wrote that allowing re-litigation would "require the respondent to deal a second time with the same underlying facts and answer twice for the same conduct, which is not fair."
Longo further underscored that parties cannot bind the tribunal through a private settlement. "The tribunal is not bound by any such agreement," she wrote. "Rather, the tribunal maintains control over its processes independent of what the parties may have agreed to."
The decision noted that if the teacher "was not satisfied with the resolution of the human rights claims in the sick leave grievance, she could have proceeded with arbitration and sought a determination of the allegations as to her Code violations."
The sick leave allegations were dismissed and the teacher’s reprisal allegations remain before the Tribunal.
