Jeffrey Forde v. Avon Maitland District School Board and Geoffrey Williams, 2010 HRTO 2367

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Between:

Jeffrey Forde Applicant

-and-

Avon Maitland District School Board and Geoffrey Williams Respondents

Interim Decision

Adjudicator: Alison Renton Date: November 30, 2010 Citation: 2010 HRTO 2367 Indexed as: Forde v. Avon Maitland District School Board

1The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18) (“the Application”) pursuant to section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on November 3, 2010 in relation to a settlement into which the applicant entered with the respondents on April 16, 2009 (“the settlement”). The applicant identifies “31/10/2010” as being the date of the last alleged contravention or breach of the settlement and asserts that his medical condition prevented him from filing the Application earlier.

2The applicant appears to allege that para 2 of the settlement was violated. Para. 2 states:

Effective September 1, 2009, the Board shall place Mr Forde on a paid leave of absence through to September 16, 2009 inclusive.

3The respondents filed a Response to an Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 19) (“the Response”). The respondents submit that the Application was filed beyond six months of the alleged contravention, as required by section 45.9, and that the applicant has not demonstrated that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith as his Application references conversations he was having with a representative in the fall of 2009. The respondents further submit that there has been no breach of the settlement as the applicant was paid the amount specified in para. 2.

4Section 45.9(3) states:

If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, a party who believes that another party has contravened the settlement may make an application to the Tribunal for an order under subsection (8),

(a) within six months after the contravention to which the application relates; or

(b) if there was a series of contraventions, within six months after the last contravention in the series.

(4) A person may apply under subsection (3) after the expiry of the time limit under that subsection if the Tribunal is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay.

5In the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to schedule a one hour conference call hearing on the following issues:

a) is the applicant’s delay in filing his Application made in good faith as required by section 45.9(4) and is there no substantial prejudice that will result to any person affected by the delay?

b) Is there a breach of para. 2 of the Application?

6Any party who wishes to rely upon any facts, case law or documents that are not already before the Tribunal in this Application, shall deliver to the other party and file with the Tribunal within 14 days of the date of the scheduled conference call hearing. Since the applicant appears to be taking the position that his medical condition prevented him from filing the Application within the six month time limit, the Tribunal would expect that the applicant deliver and file medical documentation in support of this position.

7I am not seized of this matter.