Bestway Zottor v. City of Ottawa, Robert Chiarelli, Steve Kanellakos, Colleen Hendricks, Suzanne Gagnon and Bonnie Johnson, 2009 HRTO 2258

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bestway Zottor

Applicant

-and-

City of Ottawa, Robert Chiarelli, Steve Kanellakos, Colleen Hendricks, Suzanne Gagnon and Bonnie Johnson

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kaye Joachim

Date: December 23, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 2258

Indexed as: Zottor v. Ottawa (City)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY

Bestway Zottor, Applicant ) Francis Aheto-Tsegah, ) Counsel

City of Ottawa, Robert Chiarelli, Steve Kanellakos, ) Marie-France Chartrand Colleen Hendricks, Suzanne Gagnon and ) and Charles Hofley, Bonnie Johnson, Respondents ) Counsel

1This Interim Decision addresses the respondents’ request to strike part of the Application.

2The applicant filed a filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission on December 19, 2006 alleging that the respondents discriminated against him in the provision of goods, services and contract on the basis of race and colour. The applicant alleged that the respondents had been continuously discriminating against him by failing to grant him training contracts since 2001.

3On January 28, 2004, the applicant filed a civil action against the City of Ottawa (the “City”) asserting that the City’s failure to renew the applicant’s training contracts.

4On July 24, 2004, the applicant and the City settled the civil action. In return for a sum of money, the applicant agreed to release the City from all claims arising from the 2002 Memorandum of Understanding.

5The applicant in his human rights complaint alleges that the respondents have reprised against him for filing the civil suit and have continued to fail to award him contracts based on discriminatory grounds.

Release of 2002 claim

6I find that the release signed by the applicant precludes him from pursuing allegations relating to the 2002 renewal and claiming any damages arising from that renewal, whether as a breach of contract or as alleged discrimination.

Alleged reprisal

7Section 8 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19, as amended, (the Code) provides:

Every person has a right to claim and enforce his or her rights under this Act, to institute and participate in proceedings under this Act and to refuse to infringe a right of another person under this Act, without reprisal or threat of reprisal for so doing.

8The civil action did not raise any allegations of discrimination and therefore does not amount to an attempt to enforce rights under the Code. Accordingly, the allegation that the City took reprisal action for filing the civil action is struck.

Next Steps

9Except as described above, the Application may proceed. The parties have agreed to mediation. The Registrar-Transition will schedule the mediation in due course.