<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
**B E T W E E N:**
Loralyn Benoit
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
University Health Network, Princess Margaret Hospital, Claude Cantin, Christopher Page, Tak Mak and Jacqueline Silvera
Respondents
---
**DECISION**
**Adjudicator:** Leslie Reaume
**Date:** July 6, 2010
**Citation:** 2010 HRTO 1416
**Indexed as:** Benoit v. University Health Network
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Appearances
Loralyn Benoit, Complainant On her own behalf
Ontario Human Rights Commission Kikee Malik, Counsel
University Health Network, Princess Margaret Hospital, Claude Cantin, Dr. Christopher Page, Dr. Tak Mak and Jacqueline Silvera, Respondents Paula Rusak, Counsel
---
[1] The complainant filed a Complaint under the provisions of the *Human Rights Code*, R.S.O. 1990, H.19, (the *Code*) before the Bill 107 amendments came into effect on June 30, 2008. In her Complaint she alleged that she experienced sexual harassment while she was a graduate student. The complaint was referred to Tribunal and, during the course of the hearing before me, the parties agreed to mediation. The parties met with a different Tribunal Vice-chair in an effort to resolve the complaint.
[2] The Commission, the complainant and the respondent were all represented by counsel. They were able to reach an agreement and the complainant and the respondent signed minutes of settlement on March 31, 2009. The Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission signed the minutes of settlement on April 9, 2009.
[3] In the normal course, the Complaint would be disposed of on the basis of the parties having reached a settlement. The parties would convey the fact of their settlement to the Tribunal by signing a Form 9 acknowledging the settlement and waiving their right to make any further oral submissions before the Tribunal. On that basis the Tribunal would issue an order indicating the file had been finally disposed of.
[4] However, in this case the complainant objects to the final disposition of the Complaint and refuses to sign the Form 9. She alleges that she was unaware of certain financial information at the time of the signing of the settlement which would have affected her position in the mediation.
[5] The parties were given an opportunity to make written and oral submissions on this issue.
[6] There are two issues from the complainant’s perspective. The first issue, which was related to funds owing to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), was disposed of by way of oral submissions and a previous direction. At the time of the signing of the minutes of settlement the complainant owed outstanding taxes to the CRA. The respondent was therefore required to remit the proceeds of the agreement to the CRA rather than directly to the complainant. The complainant disputes the amount owing to the CRA and is currently in negotiations to resolve the matter. However, it was clear from her submissions that she was aware of the tax dispute prior to the mediation. As a result, I rejected her submission that the Complaint should not be disposed of on the basis that the complainant knew about her dispute with CRA prior to participating in the mediation.
[7] The second issue arises from the complainant’s allegation that her Complaint included a claim for financial compensation for part of a stipend to which she alleges she was entitled. During the academic year 2005-2006, the complainant was a graduate student at the University of Toronto. The harassment allegations arise from the graduate work she was undertaking with the respondents for which she was receiving the stipend. The complainant alleges that the shortfall in the stipend is tied to the allegations of discrimination and therefore would have been recoverable had she been successful in the hearing. The complainant was clearly pursuing a remedy for the shortfall when she entered into the mediation process and it was the subject of some discussion during that process.
[8] The Commission took the position that the agreement was negotiated and signed by the parties in good faith and that it was valid subject to the complainant receiving any outstanding compensation owed to her from the academic year 2005-2006.
[9] The complainant alleges that during the mediation she was advised that the respondent, the University Health Network (UHN), would not take responsibility for the shortfall. The complainant alleges that shortly after the mediation she was advised by a source at the University of Toronto, that at the time of her placement, UHN had agreed to pay her stipend for that academic year. She alleges that she was mislead by counsel for the respondent, however, she could not say exactly who advised her that UHN would not take responsibility for the shortfall. There is no evidence that this assertion came directly from counsel for the respondent since the parties had no direct contact with each other during the mediation.
[10] In my view, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the Complaint should not be disposed of in light of the settlement achieved by the parties. In the negotiation, the respondent took the position that it would pay no more than the sum ultimately agreed upon. As in any mediation, the parties all made compromises to achieve a settlement. The complainant actively pursued the issue of the stipend in the negotiations and was told, for whatever reason, that the UHN would not agree to pay it as part of the settlement. The complainant, who was represented by counsel, had a choice to accept the agreement, reject the agreement and end the negotiation, or ask for time to consider the agreement and obtain further information about any number of issues, including the alleged shortfall in the stipend.
[11] For those reasons, this Complaint is now disposed of pursuant to section 40 of the *Code*.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of July, 2010.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Leslie Reaume
Vice-chair
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel