Bobby Saini v. Family Association for Mental Health Everywhere, 2009 HRTO 938

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Bobby Saini Applicant

-and-

Family Association for Mental Health Everywhere, Christine Cooper and David Kennedy Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Alan Whyte

Date: June 30, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 938

Indexed as: Saini v. Family Association for Mental Health Everywhere

1In this Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against the respondent Cooper, who is Executive Director, and the respondent Kennedy, who is the President of the Board of Directors of the respondent Family Association for Mental Health Everywhere (“FAMHE”).

2The applicant commenced a human rights complaint under the Code against the respondents Cooper and Kennedy, as well as FAMHE, on October 19, 2005. That complaint was settled by Minutes of Settlement and Release dated September 26, 2007. The Minutes of Settlement and Release contained certain provisions regarding the provision of future employment references to potential employers of the applicant, and also contained a release under which the applicant released the individual respondents and FAMHE from all actions, causes of action, claims, demands and other proceedings arising out of the applicant’s employment with FAMHE or the termination of that employment.

3This Application was filed on March 16, 2009. Although there are certain allegations of discrimination made against the respondents, there are also many allegations to the effect that the respondents have breached the above mentioned Minutes of Settlement and Release.

4A Response has been filed by the respondents in which the Application has been characterized as a breach of settlement proceeding in relation to the Minutes of Settlement and Release. The respondents deny any such breach. The respondents have also raised a timeliness issue.

5The applicant has filed a Request for Order during Proceedings (“the Request”) by which she seeks to add FAMHE as a respondent to the Application. She asserts that she was confused about the naming of parties in the Tribunal process, but she believes that FAMHE has responsibility for the actions of its officers and directors. No Response to the Request has been received, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

6In the circumstances, the Tribunal will treat this Application as a contravention of settlement application under section 45.9 of the Code and Rule 24 of the Tribunal's Rules. The Registrar will process the Application accordingly.

7The Tribunal orders that FAMHE be added as a respondent and the style of cause has been amended accordingly.

8The timeliness issue will be addressed at the hearing of this Application.

9I am not seized.