HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
Muhammad Saleem Quereshi
Complainant
-and-
The Board of Education for the City of Toronto and
Central High School of Commerce
Respondents
DECISION ON REMEDY (2)
Adjudicator: Ed Ratushny, Q.C.
Date: August 31, 2004
Citation: 2004 HRTO 11
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
400 University Avenue, 7th Floor
Toronto ON M7A 1T7
Phone (416) 314-0004 Fax (416) 314-8743 Toll free 1-800-668-3946
TTY (416) 314-2379 / 1-800-424-1168
[1] My Decision on Remedy dated May 15, 2003, concluded by stating:
The Tribunal will remain seized of this matter until all aspects of this Order have been met.
[2] By letter dated June 19, 2003, Counsel for the Respondents suggested the Decision had not addressed their written submission to the effect that interest should be calculated at an annual average rate of 9%. No submissions were received from the Complainant or the Ontario Human Rights Commission with respect to the proposed 9% rate.
[3] On July 8, 2003, I instructed the Registrar to advise the parties that the rate of interest for lost income and general damages would be set at 9%. Further submissions were received over the course of the year.
[4] I have concluded that this further direction was an error on my part. In fact, the Decision addressed the rate of calculation which is encompassed by the phrase “in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act”. The reference to a rate of 9% was not a clarification but amounted to a purported variation of the Decision. I agree with the submissions of the Ontario Human Rights Commission that I do not have jurisdiction to change the Decision and the 9% rate would constitute a substantive change. The July 8 direction is of no effect and the wording in the May 15, 2003 Decision must prevail.
[5] With respect to the sum of $10,000 referred to in Paragraph 28 of the Decision, the Complainant now appears to have changed his position. He now agrees with the Respondents and the Commission that this sum should not have been awarded. Again, I am functus and cannot revoke this component of the Remedy, even with the consent of the parties. It appears that the avenue for further relief in this respect would have to be sought in the Divisional Court.
[6] I regret any inconvenience my inadvertence with respect to the first issue may have caused the parties.
Dated at Ottawa, this 31st day of August, 2004.
“Ed Ratushny”
Ed Ratushny, Q.C.