HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Complainant
-and-
571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac
Tavern, Vladimir (a.k.a. Walter) Perin Sr., and Walter Perin Jr.
Respondents
A N D B E T W E E N:
Martha Glover
Complainant
-and-
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Commission
-and-
571566 Ontario Inc. o/a Cadillac Tavern, 1528433 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Cadillac
Tavern, Vladimir (a.k.a. Walter) Perin Sr., and Walter Perin Jr.
Respondents
decision
Adjudicator: Ian Anderson
Indexed as: Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc.
1These applications relate to an allegation that there has been a contravention of a settlement of a complaint filed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended, (the "Code"). By decision dated August 19, 2011, the Tribunal found that there was a contravention of the settlement and addressed the appropriate remedy for that breach. At para. 78 of that decision the Tribunal stated:
The Commission shall have ten days from the date of this decision to request an order for the specific enforcement of the unfulfilled "public interest remedies" of the Memorandum of Settlement. If such a request is made, the parties shall have ten days from the date of the request to file any submissions they may wish to make as to why the Tribunal should not then order the individual Respondents to comply with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Memorandum of Settlement. In the event that any party files submissions, the other parties shall have five days to file any submissions in reply. In the absence of any submissions, an order for the enforcement of these "public interest" provisions of the Memorandum of Settlement shall issue, as it may after consideration of any submissions filed.
2By letter dated August 30, 2011, the Commission requested that Tribunal issue the orders in question. The Commission also stated:
As noted above, however, the respondents are out of the jurisdiction, or were at the time of the hearing. From an enforcement point of view, the order will be meaningful only at such time as the personal respondents return to Ontario, should they do so. Accordingly, the Commission asks that the order also stipulate that the respondents be required to notify the Commission should they once again take up residence in Ontario.
3The filing of the request by the Commission triggered the schedule for filing of submissions set out in para. 78; however, no submissions have been filed.
4An order directing an individual to notify the Commission of their movements strikes me as extraordinary. Such an order may or may not be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In any event, I am not prepared to make such an order in the absence of submissions.
5In the result, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
That the Personal Respondents, Valdimir (Walter) Perin Sr. and Walter Perin Jr., attend a training program, at their own expense, designed to assist employers in identifying and addressing instances of discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual harassment, facilitated by an expert on anti-discrimination principles within 90 days of the date of this decision. The respondents are to inform the Commission of the identity of the trainer and the date on which the training was completed.
That within 60 days of completion of the training in paragraph 1, Valdimir (Walter) Perin Sr. and Walter Perin Jr. establish a comprehensive written anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy (the "Policy") for any employees which they may have that conforms to the requirements of the Code. The Policy should address, among other things, a sexual harassment policy, and include an internal complaints process and specific notification that complaints arising under the Policy can be taken to the Commission within six months of the last alleged incident of discrimination or harassment, whether or not the internal complaint procedure is used.
Dated at Toronto, this 19th day of September, 2011.
"signed by"
Ian Anderson
Member