Lester Pais v. RONA Ontario Inc., 2010 HRTO 1414

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

B E T W E E N:

Lester Pais

Applicant

-and-

RONA Ontario Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David A. Wright Date: June 23, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 1414 Indexed as: Pais v. RONA Ontario

1Following the Tribunal’s previous Interim Decision in this matter, 2010 HRTO 1394, the following information has come to the Tribunal’s attention.

2On June 18, 2010, counsel for the respondent sent the Tribunal a letter advising that the matter was settled and that an executed Form 25 would be sent to the Tribunal early the next week when counsel’s client returned from a trip outside the country.

3On June 21, 2010, the applicant sent the Tribunal an e-mail stating that he wished to revoke his authorization on the Form 25 that precedes June 21, 2010 as he has not had the opportunity to properly review the settlement offer.

4On June 22, 2010, counsel for the respondent sent the Tribunal an Application alleging a contravention of settlement and enclosing Minutes of Settlement executed by both parties and a Form 25 executed by the applicant on June 17, 2010. Later on June 22, 2010, counsel for the respondent sent the Tribunal a Form 25 executed by both parties.

5On June 22, the applicant sent the Tribunal submissions that read as follows:

There has been no contravention of the settlement. The settlement states that a form 25 should be submitted to the tribunal but does not specify any deadline. I have indicated to the tribunal that I will be filing it later. Rona also has not completed the form 25 and has indicated that they will be filing it at a later date. The settlement also contained coercive language threatening to withdraw the offer at any time thus not giving me proper opportunity to review the offer. I request the hearing dates not be cancelled at this time.

6It is evident that the parties have settled this matter. The applicant does not deny that he signed the Minutes of Settlement and release and the Form 25, nor that he provided it to the respondent for filing. He states that he intends to file a Form 25. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to finally dispose of the application and close its file, in accordance with the agreement of the parties on the Form 25.

7There is, of course, nothing preventing the applicant from alleging in a new Application that the signed settlement is not valid and binding. However, in such a proceeding the respondent could raise the existence of the signed settlement and release. It is important to note that the factors cited by the applicant in his submissions are not generally the types of factors that make a signed settlement agreement and release invalid. Parties are entitled to consider a Tribunal matter completed once a settlement has been signed and a party is not, in most circumstances, able to “revoke“ a signature on a settlement.

8The Application is finally disposed of and the Tribunal’s file is closed. The hearing dates scheduled for next week are cancelled.