Basic v. Covenant House, 2011 HRTO 861

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Zvonimir Basic

Applicant

-and-

Covenant House

Respondent

decision

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson

Date: May 3, 2011

Citation: 2011 HRTO 861

Indexed as: Basic v. Covenant House

APPEARANCES

Zvonimir Basic, Applicant ) Self-represented

Covenant House, Respondent ) Carole Jenkins, Counsel

1This matter is an an Application under s. 45.9(3) of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging contravention of the settlement between the parties that resolved a previous Application to the Tribunal.

2The Tribunal ordered the hearing to proceed by teleconference in a Case Assessment Direction, dated March 2, 2011. The Tribunal also directed the applicant to be prepared to explain his allegations and how they amount to a breach of the minutes of settlement. The hearing by teleconference proceeded as directed.

3For the reasons which follow, the Application is dismissed

4On March 24, 2010, the parties settled a previous Application involving them during a Tribunal mediation session and executed Minutes of Settlement (“the Minutes”). Paragraph 3 of the Minutes stated as follows:

3. The Respondent also agrees to create within 90 days of signing this settlement an Information Sheet for its users which shall outline in plain language what restrictions may be placed on anyone applying for or receiving benefits from Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Programme. This Information Sheet will be available to any youth who asks to stay with the respondent as appropriate. A copy of this Information Sheet will be mailed by regular mail to the Applicant once it has been prepared

5There is no dispute that the respondent prepared an information sheet setting out the respondent’s policy regarding restrictions that may be placed on youths applying for or receiving benefits from Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Programme (“ODSP”). The applicant acknowledged that the respondent prepared the document within 90 days of March 24, 2010 and provided him with a copy. The applicant did not suggest that the document was not drafted in “plain language”.

6Rather, the applicant’s concerns relate to the substance of the respondent’s policy as set out in the information sheet. Paragraph 2 of the information sheet was the focus of the applicant submissions, which states as follows:

2.) Covenant House will support a resident to apply for Ontario Works (welfare) or ODSP (disability pension) under some very specific circumstances:

a) If your Case Management Team has approved your plan to attend school full-time and live independently, we will support you to apply for Ontario Works in order to get the financial assistance you will need when you move out.

b) If your Doctor has determined and confirmed in writing, that you are unable to work due to a physical or mental health issue, the Case Management Team will support you to apply for ODSP.

c) However, if you are physically and mentally able to work full-time and wish to apply for Ontario Works we will refer you to a shelter that can assist you with your application.

The applicant argued that the policy required disclosure of medical information to which the respondent has no right and indicated that the respondent would turn “helpless kids and youth to the cold streets” to survive by their own devices. The applicant found this policy unacceptable and stated that he would not have agreed to the Minutes had he been aware of the respondent’s policy.

7The respondent argued that it met its obligation under paragraph 3 of the Minutes: it drafted a plain language information sheet describing its policy regarding Ontario Works and the ODSP within the specified time and provided a copy to the applicant. The Minutes did not grant the applicant any right to review or approve the policy. The respondent therefore submitted that there was no breach of the Minutes. For the sake of clarity and perhaps to give the applicant some comfort, the respondent clarified that it does not turn youth away, but assists them to find alternate shelter in circumstances where Covenant House cannot support them. The respondent does not require medical disclosure and only becomes involved if a client asks for assistance in applying for benefits from Ontario Works or the ODSP. The respondent noted that medical disclosure is required when applying for ODSP benefits.

8The applicant is clearly troubled by the respondent’s policy set out in the information sheet required by the Minutes and seeks the Tribunal’s intervention to prevent the application of the policy. The substance of the respondent’s policy regarding Ontario Works and ODSP is not, however, before me. Rather, I must determine whether the respondent contravened the settlement with the applicant. The respondent was obliged to set out its policy regarding Ontario Works and ODSP in a plain language document within 90 days of the settlement and provide a copy to the applicant. The respondent did this. The Minutes did not oblige the respondent to seek the applicant’s input or approval regarding the substance of the policy. Consequently, the Minutes provide no basis upon which the applicant may object to the policy. Accordingly, I find that the respondent did not contravene the settlement.

9The Application is dismissed.