Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Katherine Oakley Applicant
-and-
Corporation of the County of Lanark, Marilyn Allen, Lesli Richmond and Deb Pidgeon Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: November 16, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2274 Indexed as: Oakley v. Lanark (County)
Appearances
Katherine Oakley, Applicant ) Self-represented Corporation of the County of Lanark, ) Marilyn Allen, Lesli Richmond and ) Colin Youngman, Counsel Deb Pidgeon, Respondents )
INTRODUCTION
1The applicant filed this Application on June 10, 2010, under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging the respondents contravened the Minutes of Settlement arising out of her previous Transition Application.
2A teleconference call was held on October 15, 2010, to hear the parties’ oral submissions with respect to the breach of settlement allegations and written submissions were received before and after the teleconference. The applicant filed numerous sets of post-hearing submissions.
3At the commencement of the teleconference, the applicant expressed concerns regarding making oral submissions in light of the fact that she was self-represented. Given the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure which promote fairness, accessibility, and efficiency, I queried whether there was any objection to the Tribunal first questioning the applicant based on her written materials, after which the applicant could make any further remarks. No one objected and the teleconference proceeded on that basis.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
4In her Transition Application, the applicant named three personal respondents, Marilyn Allen, Lesli Richmond, and Deb Pidgeon, as well as the corporate respondent, Corporation of the County of Lanark. These parties entered into Minutes of Settlement on October 27, 2008, that agreement being the subject of the current Application.
5Lisa Crosbie-Larmon was not named in the Transition Application and was not a party to its settlement. The applicant identified Ms. Crosbie-Larmon as an additional personal respondent in the current Application. I find that since Ms. Crosbie-Larmon was not a party to the Transition Application and did not execute the Minutes of Settlement, she was not personally subject to the terms of that agreement. Therefore, I conclude that Ms. Crosbie-Larmon cannot be identified as a personal respondent in the current Application. As such, the style of cause is amended to remove Ms. Crosbie-Larmon as a personal respondent.
BACKGOUND
6The corporate respondent operates Lanark Lodge, a 24-hour residential care facility for the aged. The applicant is employed as a Health Care Aide at Lanark Lodge. The applicant self-identifies as living with a mental health disability and experiences sleep disturbance issues for which she takes medication.
7The applicant applied for and was awarded a full-time rotating day/evening shift position on March 7, 2007. On March 8, 2007, the applicant requested that, due to her disability-related medication, she be assigned only to day shifts and provided a medical note dated approximately six months earlier (September 15, 2006) to support her request.
TRANSITION APPLICATION
8On August 11, 2008, the applicant filed her Transition Application, T-0075-08, alleging that the respondents subjected her to discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in the workplace because the disability-related medication she takes prevented her from working evening shifts. The applicant alleged that the respondents refused to accommodate her on day shifts and have harassed and pressured her to work evening shifts.
9In response to the Transition Application, the respondents alleged that the applicant was uncooperative with their attempts to investigate accommodation. The corporate respondent asserted that it did not have sufficient medical information to enable it to determine whether the applicant has a disability and, if so, the appropriate accommodation.
10The Tribunal conducted a Mediation regarding the Transition Application on October 27, 2008. On that day, the parties entered into and executed Minutes of Settlement (the “Settlement”) and agreed to the Tribunal issuing an Order disposing of the Transition Application without an opportunity for oral submissions. The Tribunal issued the Order in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
11Shortly after the Mediation, the applicant took steps to have the Settlement set aside. On November 7, 2008, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal indicating that her lawyer at the Mediation had allegedly misrepresented her and that she signed the Settlement “under duress”.
12The applicant requested reconsideration of the Order disposing of the Transition Application and delivered her Reconsideration request to the respondents on November 24, 2008. The respondents disputed the applicant’s claims of duress and maintained the Settlement was binding. The Tribunal sought written submissions from the parties.
13In Decision [2009 HRTO 1034](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2009/2009hrto1