O'Connor v. Ontario (Ministry of Revenue), 2010 HRTO 2128

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Paul O’Connor

Applicant

-and-

The Crown in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Revenue

Respondent

A N D B E T W E E N:

Paul O’Connor

Applicant

-and-

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Jim Paul, Lorne Woodhouse and Cameron Walker

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Brian Eyolfson

Date: October 21, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2128

Indexed as: O’Connor v. Ontario (Ministry of Revenue)

1The applicant filed two Applications for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18) pursuant to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). One Application (Tribunal File Number 2010-05213-S) names the applicant’s employer as a respondent and the style of cause has been amended to reflect the correct legal name provided by the employer, “The Crown in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Revenue” (the “employer respondent”). The other Application (Tribunal File Number 2010-05218-S) names the applicant’s union and other individuals as respondents (the “union respondents”). The applicant attached to both Applications what appears to be unsigned Minutes of Settlement concerning grievances.

2On March 31, 2010, the union respondents filed a Response to an Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 19). They submit that the applicant has not identified what settlement provision he alleges was breached or how any provision was breached. They submit that to the extent that the Application includes allegations against the union or individual union respondents, those allegations concern the applicant’s unrelated grievance and not any contravention of settlement. The union respondents submit that the Application does not disclose any prima facie contravention of settlement and request that the Application be dismissed.

3On April 1, 2010, the employer respondent also filed a Response (Form 19). The employer respondent submits that the Application should be dismissed without a hearing as the Application, on its face, fails to disclose a breach of settlement. In the alternative, the employer respondent denies that it has breached a settlement that it entered into with the applicant and the union.

4On July 8, 2010, the Tribunal delivered to the applicant a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application (“Notice”), indicating that it appears the Application is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the following reasons:

The Application for Contravention of Settlement does not include a copy of a settlement of and Application made under the Code and signed by the parties. Rather, the attached Minutes of Settlement appear to relate to the settlement of grievances.

The Application for Contravention of Settlement does not indicate what term(s) of a settlement of an Application made under the Code, and signed by the parties has/have been contravened or breached.

5In the Notice, the Tribunal required submissions from the applicant addressing the above issues within 30 days of July 8, 2010. The applicant sought an extension of time to file submissions and the Tribunal granted the applicant an extension until September 2, 2010.

6On August 20, 2010, the applicant provided a copy of Minutes of Settlement signed by the applicant, the employer, and the union on June 19, 2009, concerning a Transition Application filed with the Tribunal, naming the employer and other individuals as respondents. It appears from the Minutes of Settlement that there was a second Transition Application, naming the union respondents, and that the second Transition Application was withdrawn as part of the terms of the settlement agreement. The applicant, however, did not provide any submissions, in response to the Notice, indicating what, if any, provision of the Minutes of Settlement is alleged to have been breached by any party.

7In materials initially filed with the Applications, one of the applicant’s primary concerns appears to be alleged delays to his grievance proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board (“GSB”). In its Response, the employer explained that the settlement agreement acknowledged that the applicant would be able to pursue his grievance at the GSB and that nothing in the settlement would prevent or impair his claim for reinstatement before the GSB. The employer respondent submits that the union has indicated that it will continue to pursue the applicant’s grievance at the GSB and that the parties have indicated to the GSB their desire to schedule additional dates for the hearing of the matter.

8In the circumstances, the Tribunal determines that it is appropriate to schedule a two-hour conference call to hear submissions from the parties on the issues of whether or not the Applications should be dismissed as outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal or for not establishing a prima facie case of contravention of settlement.

9The following directions shall apply to the conference call:

(a) The applicant should be prepared to proceed first by addressing the issues identified in paragraph 8 above.

(b) If any party wishes to rely on any written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) or facts not contained in the materials already filed with the Tribunal, they must deliver such additional material to the other parties and file it with the Tribunal no later than two weeks before the date of the conference call.

10I am not seized.