Guthro v. Westinghouse Canada Inc. (No. 1)
1990-10-17
Ontario Board of Inquiry
Linda Guthro Complainant
v.
Westinghouse Canada Inc. Respondent
Date of Complaint: February 18, 1982
Date of Decision: October 17, 1990
Before: Ontario Board of Inquiry, Morley R. Gorsky
Appearances by: S.Z. Pete Volaric, Counsel for the Complainant Mark Hart, Counsel for the Commission Douglas K. Gray, Counsel for the Respondent
SETTLEMENT — COUNSEL — not binding where complainant misunderstands agreement — authority of counsel to settle complaint
Summary: The Board of Inquiry finds that a settlement understood by the respondent company and the Ontario Human Rights Commission to settle two complaints filed by Linda Guthro is not binding on the complainant.
Linda Guthro filed a number of complaints against her employer, Westinghouse Canada Inc., alleging sex discrimination in lay-offs, promotion and pay, and reprisal against her for filing and pursuing human rights complaints. These events occurred during the 1970s and 1980s. In 1988, there were two outstanding complaints, the first regarding sex discrimination in pay and the second regarding reprisals against Ms. Guthro. Settlement discussions were undertaken through a lawyer retained by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for this purpose. However, because of a breakdown in communications the lawyer, the Commission and the respondent company understood that the settlement that was offered would settle both complaints but the complainant, Ms. Guthro, understood that the settlement offer referred only to the first complaint.
The Board of Inquiry finds that the complainant's belief was reasonable in the circumstances since there was no clear communication with her on the second complaint and she did not agree to settlement of the second complaint.
The Board finds that because the settlement was not properly concluded, Ms. Guthro can proceed to a hearing on the first complaint if she chooses.
Cases Cited
Cambrian Ford Sales (1975) Ltd. v. Horner (1989), 1989 CanLII 4259 (ON HCJ), 69 O.R. (2d) 431 (Div.Ct.): 54
Canada (Treasury Board) v. Robichaud (No. 2) (1989), 1989 CanLII 9014 (CHRT), 11 C.H.R.R. D/194 (Can. Rev.Trib.): 68
Little v. Spreadbury, [1910] 2 K.B. 658: 60
Neale v. Gordon-Lennox, [1902] A.C. 465: 59
Pearson v. Plester, [1989 CanLII 5189 (MB CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/mb/mbca/doc/1989/1989canlii