In the matter of a discipline hearing
Between:
Tamara Fernandes (complainant) and Sergio Cacoilo (respondent)
Before a panel of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) Discipline Board October 24, 2025. Decision rendered November 11, 2025.
Kathleen Gardiner , Chairperson
Claire Laughlin
Louis Clausi
Gian Marcon (alternate)
*This is a summary of the Discipline Board decision*
/ ORIGIN OF THE CASE
The General Secretary of OECTA has referred the following statement of complaint to the Discipline Board of OECTA.
The Complainant, Ms. Tamara Fernandes, member of Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA, made the following complaint, filed on May 26, 2025:
The allegations are:
The actions of Mr. Sergio Cacoilo, Unit President of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA, are in violation of the Handbook (2024-2025 edition), specifically the following Bylaws:
2.3 The duties of the Association shall be to protect the rights of members pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario Human Rights Code, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and all applicable legislation.
2.126.1 To promote the interests of the Association.
/ THE HEARING
The Hearing into this complaint was convened at 10:00 a.m. on October 24, 2025, at the Provincial Office of OECTA, 65 St. Clair Ave. E., Toronto.
The Complainant was represented by Mr. Joe Pece. The Respondent was represented by Mr. Horst Schweinbenz.
There was no agreed Statement of Facts.
/ THE CASE FOR THE COMPLAINANT
Mr. Pece presented 10 instances between March 2021 and May 2025, which taken together, he alleged that Mr. Cacoilo had engaged in behaviour that breached the Bylaws of OECTA with respect to members rights pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Ms. Fernandes identifies as a woman of colour with a documented disability and hence she is a member of a Code-protected group under the Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act
Although Ms. Fernandes’ employer agreed to accommodations to create a safe workplace environment for her, there have been many breaches of the plan on the part of the employer, over a period of years. In addition, Ms. Fernandes has experienced bullying and harassment in the workplace, directly related to her disability. On numerous occasions, Ms. Fernandes has sought help from her union, and in particular from her local Unit President Mr. Cacoilo.
Over a period of time, there has been a history of behaviour by Mr. Cacoilo towards Ms. Fernandes, which has created a hostile environment for her and resulted in discrimination in respect to representation of her as a member of OECTA. Specifically, Mr. Cacoilo frequently failed to acknowledge or respond to her communications, failed to file or actively
pursue legitimate grievances on her behalf against the employer, and spoke negatively about her to others including to her employer in her presence. This behaviour by Mr. Cacoilo contributed in part to the trauma which Ms. Fernandes experienced and caused her to seek alternative representation at both the local unit and from the Provincial Office.
Likewise, in matters related to activities in the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA, Mr. Cacoilo, on several occasions failed to acknowledge Ms. Fernandes’ communications or did so in a dismissive manner. Finally, when she had requested of him remote access to the General Meeting of the Unit on May 26, 2025, so as to hear the speeches of the candidates for election to the Unit Executive, he failed to respond. And since her disability prevented her from attending in person, she was denied the same right to fully participate in the process as afforded to other members of the Unit who are not disabled.
On the basis of the event of the AGM on May 26, 2025, alone, the Panel should find Mr. Cacoilo had breached Bylaw 2.3.
With respect to Bylaw 2.126.1, the events of March 2021, April 2021, September 2021, April 2022, September 2022, June 2023, February 2024, and May 2025 demonstrated that Mr. Cacoilo had exhibited vexatious behaviour towards Ms. Fernandes over many years. Evidence showed that there was a poisoned atmosphere and pervasive fear within the Hamilton Secondary Unit; individuals, afraid of reprisals, could not come forward and appear in person at this hearing. He noted that Ms. Fernandes did not file this complaint because she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the elections. She submitted her complaint on the day prior to the vote taking place.
/ THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Schweinbenz presented evidence of how Mr. Cacoilo had provided outstanding help to a member with a disability. In Ms. Fernandes’ situation, Mr. Cacoilo had been advised that from November 2023 going forwards, representation for her would be provided through the Provincial Office of OECTA and that Mr. Cacoilo believed that this was for all matters.
As to the claim that Mr. Cacoilo had divulged personal information about Ms. Fernandes and spoken negatively about her to members of the executive of the Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA, this was not true. She was referring to a report with respect to members receiving long-term disability benefits, given during a confidential in-camera session. Mr.
Tony Delville, a past First-Vice President of the Unit, who was familiar with these reports, stated that only numbers are given. Mr. Delville also testified that he had never heard Mr. Cacoilo speak negatively about Ms. Fernandes.
With respect to filing grievances on behalf of Ms. Fernandes, Mr. Delville stated that in his capacity as grievance officer, he had filed three grievances but when Mr. Keith Boyd, an OECTA staff officer had taken over representing her, he had put these into the bottom drawer of his desk.
With respect to the General Meeting on May 26, 2025, Mr.Cacoilo was not involved and no one had approached the Elections Chairperson. There is a directive in the Unit Bylaws to a proxy vote as well as to not transmitting meetings electronically. A directive from the Deputy General Secretary of OECTA was, to approach the assigned Staff Officer, Liz Stuart, with any problems and also that there was to be no proxy voting. Mr. Schweinbenz stated that nowhere in the Unit Bylaws is there anything about accommodation and he did not think that the Elections Chair could provide that.
Regarding the in-camera report, which was to review who was on long-term disability, no medical information had been provided.
Ms. Fernandes says she feels she has been discriminated against; the facts do not show that and there is no proof that members of the Unit are intimidated. Mr. Cacoilo tried to stay neutral. He did recommend to her to go to OECTA on two occasions. Ms. Fernandes did receive a financial settlement from the School Board; perhaps she was not aware of Mr Cacoilo’s intervention with the Board’s Chair, Mr. Daly, in that matter, but that’s what happened.
Mr. Schweinbenz acknowledged a horrible incident that Ms. Fernandes had experienced but said it was not caused by Mr. Cacoilo and that it had been handled by a provincial staff officer. He believed that other incidences referenced were not relevant; there is no evidence of intimidation.
Mr. Cacoilo had done his best; perhaps his best was not good enough, as perceived by the Complainant. Perhaps the investigator had not been informed that a provincial staff officer had taken over representation for Ms. Fernandes. Mr. Cacoilo has served the Association both locally and provincially to the best of his ability and that should not be taken away.
/ DECISION OF THE PANEL
After careful consideration, the Panel determined that it does not have jurisdiction to examine the alleged violation of By-law 2.126.1, since a complaint with respect to a breach of this by-law requires three members to be part to the complaint:
Bylaw 2.229 states “Three or more members of the Association, or the executive of a unit, or the provincial executive or one member if the complaint alleges a breach of by-law 2.3 may file a written statement of complaint to the general secretary that a unit executive or member(s) of the unit executive are in breach of the constitution, by-laws, policies or procedures of the Association under by-law 2.229.”
The Panel determined that it would examine the case only with respect to a breach of By-law 2.3.
After careful consideration, the Panel decided to limit the scope of this case. The independent third party who investigated the complaint expanded the scope beyond that stated in the original letter of complaint, to include incidents that occurred between March 2021 and May 2025. By reaching back so far, there are problems which may arise: memories fade, documents are destroyed; responding parties are not given an opportunity to improve or correct unsatisfactory behaviour.
The Panel, therefore, limited its deliberations to consideration of the incidents alleged to have occurred on February 4, 2024, February 24, 2024, and May 26, 2025, in accordance with the complainant’s original letter, which mentions three recent incidents, referred by her to the Provincial Office.
After consideration of the evidence and testimony presented, the Panel arrived at the following decision:
With respect to the complaint against Mr. Sergio Cacoilo, President of Hamilton Secondary Unit of OECTA, he was in violation of By-law 2.3.
In the email of February 4, 2024, Mr. Cacoilo used language which some members may have believed minimised their human rights compared to their rights under the Collective Agreement. The email did not name or specifically target Ms. Fernandes; it was sent to all members of the Unit. However, the language used was at minimal, insensitive.
Ms. Fernandes’ claim that Mr. Cacoilo divulged personal information about her during an Executive meeting in February 2024, is unsubstantiated. While
Mr. Cacoilo had not replied to Ms. Fernandes’ email of concern on this issue, Mr. Delville stated that during executive meetings, there is usually an in-camera report with respect to members on long-term disability but this is a confidential report which provides numbers only. No one present at that particular meeting gave evidence at the hearing. There is no proof that in this instance, Ms. Fernandes’ rights were violated.
For the Unit General Meeting of May 26, 2025, Ms. Fernandes requested by email, of Mr. Cacoilo that she be given remote access to this meeting, at which candidates for positions on the Unit Executive would give speeches ahead of the election the following day. She also requested a proxy vote. These requests were made, on May 20, 2025, one week ahead of the election, because Ms. Fernandes was unable to attend the meeting on account of her disability. She did not receive access as requested.
Mr. Cacoilo did not reply to Ms. Fernandes’ email. Mr. Cacoilo claims that since, earlier in February 2025, he had recused himself of involvement in the unit elections, as his son was running for office, he could not respond to Ms. Fernandes’ inquiry. Further, since staff at the Provincial Office had been dealing with Ms. Fernandes’ concerns for some time and she had copied the staff officer on the email, it was not his responsibility to address this request.
Mr. Cacoilo’s latter argument is not reasonable. While provincial staff had been assisting Ms. Fernandes with respect to grievances and issues related to the WSIB, they do not get involved with the day to day running of the local unit. That is the responsibility of the Unit President and Executive.
Mr. Cacoilo’s claim that he could not respond to Ms. Fernandes’ request on grounds that he had recused himself of involvement in the elections (unsubstantiated), is also unreasonable. He could have dealt with the request in a number of ways, including forwarding the email to the Elections Chair or contacting the staff officer who had been assigned, as per the Memo on Unit Election Procedures received from the Deputy General Secretary of OECTA on February 25, 2025, addressed to all Unit Presidents. He certainly could have provided Ms. Fernandes with a courtesy reply, explaining why he thought he couldn’t handle the request himself and assuring her that her request would be honoured.
Ms. Fernandes’ request was made in a timely manner, six days prior to the meeting, and was reasonable, because the Unit had most recently provided remote access to its Collective Bargaining
Information Meeting via Zoom, on June 20, 2024. The Human Rights Code specifically protects against discrimination in social areas, which includes Unions. In its guidelines the OHRC states: “An inexplicable departure from usual practices may establish a claim of discrimination.”
Ms. Fernandes’ request was not only reasonable, it was a required accommodation under the Accessibility for Ontarians Disability Act (2005), Part 1.1.
This meeting was important because it allowed members to hear from candidates who would potentially be representing and assisting them in protecting their rights. While Ms. Fernandes, a person with a disability, did receive a proxy vote, she was denied full participation in the process of selecting candidates, as afforded to all other members who did not have a disability impeding their attendance.
Several of the Will Says provided by Mr. Cacoilo testify to his advocacy for the rights of OECTA members, specifically pointing to his skills in debate on the floor of the OECTA Annual General Meeting and attesting to his excellent command of the issues.
In the 2021 Audit prepared for OECTA on equity, diversity, and inclusion, two pertinent recommendations should be noted:
3. that all OECTA manuals include a statement describing the union’s legal obligation to ensure that meetings are accessible and that accommodation is offered and provided to members with disabilities;
18. that OECTA make a clear commitment to upholding human rights and that all union and working environments should be free from harassment and discrimination for all members, in particular those who are indigenous, racialized, 2SLGBTQ+, women, and members with disabilities.
The Association has spent considerable time and effort training Unit Presidents on AIDE issues but Mr. Cacoilo has failed to put this knowledge into practice.
Mr. Cacoilo holds a position in which he represents the Association at the local level. He is a longtime serving President of the Hamilton Secondary Unit, with evidence of representing members in need of accommodation. He was well aware of Ms. Fernandes’ disability, was knowledgeable in what he had to do and, in this instance, he failed to do it.
/ PENALTY
1. A Letter of Reprimand will be issued to Mr. Cacoilo
2. A fine of $1000.00
3. The Decision of the Panel will be published in the next official OECTA publication.
This violation of the legislated rights of a Codeprotected member with a disability, although a single event, is significant. Mr. Cacoilo needs to be advised of the gravity of his actions, the impact of them, and how he can improve on his behaviour in the future.
The fine is to act as a deterrent against a repeat offence by Mr. Cacoilo, and also to deter others in a similar position from committing a similar offence. It is a punishment, to bring a sense of justice to the OECTA community. It is also to publicly denounce this unlawful conduct and to reaffirm the standards that the Association expects of all its members.
Publication will enable members to know that the Association places great importance on all members’ rights and this is heightened in regards to human rights. The protection of members’ rights is fundamental to OECTA’s core principles.