Dopelhamer v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2012 HRTO 1806

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mary Dopelhamer

Applicant

-and-

Sobeys Capital Incorporated, Andrew Johnson, John Leblanc, Linda Lavergne, Linda Roy, Natasha Scorniaechi, Stacey Cape, Stephanie Switzer and Steve Nakic

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha

Date: September 20, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 1806

Indexed as: Dopelhamer v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Mary Dopelhamer, Applicant ) Self-represented

Sobeys Capital Incorporated, Andrew ) Johnson, John Leblanc, Linda Lavergne ) Linda Roy, Natasha Scorniaechi, Stacey ) Bryan J. Crisp, Counsel Cape, Stephanie Switzer and Steve Nakic, ) Respondents )

INTRODUCTION

1The applicant filed this Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18), on June 22, 2012, pursuant to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (“Code”), alleging that the respondents breached a settlement entered into by the parties of a previous Application to the Tribunal.

2Rule 24.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure required the applicant to file a copy of the written settlement alleged to have been contravened, together with her Form 18 (Application for Contravention of Settlement); however, the applicant failed to do so.

3The respondents filed a Form 19 Response to the Contravention of Settlement Application on July 6, 2012. Notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to provide a copy of a settlement document as required by the Tribunal’s Rules, the respondents provided a copy of Minutes of Settlement, signed on April 23, 2012, involving the parties’ resolution of the previous application. The Response asserted that the respondents complied with all terms of the settlement.

4In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated August 7, 2012, the Tribunal noted that the applicant’s Contravention of Settlement Application narrative failed to identify what terms or aspects of settlement the applicant alleged that the respondents contravened. The CAD directed the applicant to file written submissions indicating with specificity what terms or aspects of settlement the applicant alleges that the respondents violated. The respondents were directed to file reply submissions.

PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

5On August 7, 2012, the applicant filed submissions setting out what she believes was unfair treatment by the respondents; though without specifying what term or aspect of the settlement she alleges was breached. The applicant alleges that she was owed greater termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act. The applicant makes various allegations about her injury, the respondents’ lack of accommodation and her provision of medical reports and appears to allege that she was wrongfully dismissed. The applicant alleges that the respondents provided the Tribunal with a false document. Lastly, the applicant alleges that she was distracted when she signed the Minutes of Settlement. The applicant filed various other sets of submissions after her August 7th materials, reiterating her allegations of unfair treatment.

6On August 14, 2012, the respondents filed submissions denying the applicant’s allegations of unfair treatment. The respondents maintain that there has been no breach of the Minutes of Settlement. The respondents assert that the applicant received her full statutory entitlements under the Employment Standards Act and that she has cashed payment of the settlement monies. The respondents argue that the applicant’s allegations regarding her injury and wrongful dismissal are inaccurate and outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction with respect to this Contravention of Settlement Application. The respondents allege that the applicant voluntarily entered into the Minutes of Settlement and, contrary to her allegations of duress, the applicant, in fact, gave directions as to the content of the language of the Minutes of Settlement.

DECISION

7I find that this Contravention of Settlement Application must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Application does not detail the alleged breach of settlement or a term of the settlement that the applicant seeks to enforce.

8The applicant has failed to identify how or on which specific terms the respondents allegedly contravened any terms of the settlement. Based on a review of the applicant’s submissions and documentation, as well as the Tribunal’s Interim Decision in the applicant’s previous application (Dopelhamer v. Sobeys, 2011 HRTO 1139), referenced in the Minutes of Settlement, it appears the applicant is attempting to reassert many of the same claims alleged in the previous application which were resolved by the Minutes of the Settlement.

9I reject the applicant’s suggestion that a breach of settlement exists because she now believes that she was entitled to more settlement monies. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over a Contravention of Settlement Application simply because the applicant, after agreeing to a settlement in writing and signing it, becomes dissatisfied with the terms.

10To the extent the applicant may be arguing the settlement should be set aside or is otherwise unenforceable, i.e. her claim that she was “distracted”, I find that she has not articulated any legal basis for such a remedy; even assuming I had jurisdiction to make such an order.

11The applicant has not delineated what parts of the Minutes of Settlement the respondents allegedly contravened and should be enforced. The Tribunal cannot proceed with this Application because it does not include any allegations with respect to a particular breach of settlement.

12As such, the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the Tribunal orders that the Application is dismissed.