Beverly Axworthy v. The Corporation of the Town of Caledon, 2012 HRTO 1661

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Beverly Axworthy Applicant

-and-

The Corporation of the Town of Caledon Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Naomi Overend

Date: August 31, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1661

Indexed as: Axworthy v. Caledon (Town)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Beverly Axworthy, Applicant

Bay Ryley, Counsel

The Corporation of the Town of Caledon, Respondent

Shanna Lyn-Cook, Representative

1The applicant filed this Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18) on February 16, 2012. A hearing by teleconference was scheduled for July 12, 2012, which was adjourned to an in-person hearing, which is in the process of being scheduled.

2The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10), asking to amend her Application two days prior to the July 12, 2012 hearing to increase the remedies she is seeking. The respondent has since filed a Response to the Request for Order (Form 11), and filed a separate Form 10 requesting production of certain documents from the applicant. This Interim Decision deals with these Requests.

decision and analysis

Amendment of Application

3In the original Application for Contravention, the applicant requested that she be reimbursed the $6,000 she alleges was improperly withheld from her by the respondent by way of remedy. In her Request to amend, the applicant seeks a further $2,500 in general damages as well as accrued interest on the $6,000. The respondent opposes amending the Application on the basis that the allegation that the respondent owes the applicant any money for breach is “unnecessary and unfounded.”

4In determining whether to amend, the Tribunal is not making any determination on the veracity of the applicant’s allegations, or whether she is, in fact, owed any money. The respondent’s objections are, therefore, not proper considerations at this point, but may be made at the hearing. Since the respondent has not asserted it is prejudiced by the applicant’s Request, I am prepared to grant the applicant’s Request to amend her Application to increase the remedy requested.

Production

5The respondent requests that the applicant produce her 2010 and 2011 Notices of Assessment and Reassessment from the Canada Revenue Agency [“CRA”]. The applicant has not filed a Response to the Request. The only justification for making this request is as follows:

We require confirmation that Ms. Axworthy has filed her 2010 and 2011 taxes, as this is a CRA tax related issue. And that her taxes have been assessed and/or reassessed appropriately.

6This case is about whether the respondent appropriately withheld money on a settlement payment, which it then remitted to CRA. I cannot see the relevance of the applicant’s 2010 assessments, as the settlement on which this alleged breach occurred did not take place until 2011. Since the applicant requests reimbursement of the full amount withheld and remitted to CRA, the question of whether she received a refund of all or a part of this amount is arguably relevant.

7Accordingly, the respondent’s Request for production of the 2010 CRA material is denied, but its Request for production of the 2011 CRA material is granted.

ORDER

8In sum, I have made the following orders:

a. The applicant’s Request to amend her Application to include a request “that the Respondent pay $2,500.00 in general damages for contravention of settlement, and that the Respondent pay interest accrued on the outstanding $6,000 from the agreed-upon settlement amount of $20,000” is granted; and

b. The respondent’s Request for production of the 2010 CRA material is denied, but its Request for production of the 2011 CRA Notice of Assessment and Reassessment is granted.