Oakley v. Lanark (County), 2009 HRTO 1034

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Katherine Oakley

Applicant

-and-

Corporation of the County of Lanark, Marilyn Allen, Lesli Richmond and Deb Pidgeon

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: July 14, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1034

Indexed as: Oakley v. Lanark (County)

1This is an Application filed August 11, 2008 under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant has asked the Tribunal to process her Application to a hearing. The respondents submit that the parties signed minutes of settlement following Tribunal mediation and the Tribunal issued an Order disposing of the Application in accordance with the minutes of settlement. The applicant seeks reconsideration of the Tribunal Order disposing of the Application, asks that the Tribunal set aside the settlement agreement and seeks to continue to process her Application.

2This Decision is based on the written submission of the parties.

3The above disputes arose following a mediation conducted by the Tribunal on October 27, 2008. The parties signed minutes of settlement and agreed to the Tribunal issuing an Order disposing of the Application without an opportunity for oral submissions. This Order was signed by a Tribunal member on October 27, 2008.

4The applicant is now seeking reconsideration of the Order disposing of the Application on the basis that the applicant signed the minutes of settlement “under duress.” The applicant asked the Tribunal to reconsider its decision to dispose of the Application, set aside the minutes of settlement and proceed to defer the Application pending a parallel arbitration proceeding.

5The respondents dispute the Tribunal’s authority to reconsider an Order issued on consent and/or its authority to set aside the minutes of settlement. In the alternative, the respondents dispute that the applicant signed the minutes of settlement under duress.

6I am satisfied that the applicant has not set out a sufficient factual basis to satisfy me that the minutes of settlement were signed “under duress.” Accordingly, regardless of whether the Tribunal has authority to reconsider its Order and/or proceed with the Application in light of the settlement, I find that it would not be appropriate to do so.

7On October 27, 2008, the Tribunal conducted a mediation of the Application. The applicant attended the mediation and was represented by a lawyer at the mediation.

8The applicant asserts that she signed the minutes of settlement and agreed to the Tribunal issuing an Order disposing of her Application “under duress.” The basis of her argument is that her former counsel advised her to accept the settlement or the employer could “do anything.” The applicant understood this to mean that the employer could, contrary to the Code, refuse to offer to accommodate her disability-related needs further.

9The applicant self-identifies as a person with a disability and asserts that she was taking medication, amitriptyline, which clouded her judgment on the day of the mediation. She asserts that, in these circumstances, the applicant’s lawyer and/or the mediator ought not to have permitted her to sign minutes of settlement without a proper opportunity for reflection.

10I note that the applicant did not submit any medical evidence supporting her assertion that her judgement was in fact clouded by the medication she was taking. In these circumstances, a bald assertion that the applicant may have been affected by medication, coupled with the fact that the applicant was represented by counsel, does not satisfy me that the applicant has established duress or a basis to permit the Application to proceed despite the signed minutes of settlement.

11In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not prepared to proceed with the Application in light of the signed minutes of settlement.