Mustapha Kassab v. UPS SCS Inc., 2012 HRTO 2297

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Mustapha Kassab

Applicant

-and-

UPS SCS Inc., Chris Dunn, Michael Nason, Derik Campbell,

Dennis Curnow, Susan Cameron and Winona Vello

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Kathleen Martin

Date: December 6, 2012

Citation: 2012 HRTO 2297

Indexed as: Kassab v. UPS SCS Inc.

Introduction

1This is an Application for Contravention of Settlement filed on September 24, 2012, pursuant to section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Application”), filed against the named respondents and another individual. The Application relates to Minutes of Settlement which the applicant and the named respondents entered into on August 24, 2012 (“the MOS”). A Response has been filed denying any contravention and stating that the additional individual identified as a respondent to this Application was not a personal respondent (which I presume means that the individual is improperly named).

2By Case Assessment Direction dated October 12, 2012, I sought further submissions from the parties. I specifically asked the applicant to provide submissions on any reply to the Response including confirmation of whether he wishes to include the individual as a respondent and, if so, on what basis; and a detailed explanation as to how the events in the Application constitute a contravention with reference to the specific paragraph of the Minutes of Settlement that is alleged to have been contravened. I also provided an opportunity to the respondents to respond to any submissions filed by the applicant.

3Submissions have now been received from the parties.

Is the additional individual a proper party to the [Application](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h19/latest/rso-1990-c-h19.html)?

4The applicant has filed submissions which I interpret as submissions in support of the individual continuing to be named. The applicant has attached what appears to be the extracts from the original application filed at the Tribunal which refers to this individual in the answers to question 8 (what happened) and question 10 (remedy). In addition, the applicant has filed a copy of the Applicant’s Reply to a Response (again from the original application) which lists the individual as one of the respondents identified by him in the Form 3.

5Neither the Minutes of Settlement nor the Form 25 refer to this individual as a respondent.

6Having regard to the material filed, I find no basis for the individual to be named as a respondent to this Application. The individual was not a party to the original Application filed to the Tribunal; rather, the individual was only referred to in the narrative and in subsequent filings made by the applicant. More importantly, the individual was not a party to the Minutes of Settlement nor a party on the Form 25. Further, the applicant has not provided any other submissions explaining why the individual should be named. In the absence of an explanation, I do not find the documents submitted from the original application are of assistance in determining whether the individual is a proper respondent to the issue of an alleged contravention of Minutes of Settlement.

7In the circumstances, I do not find that the individual is a proper party to this Application. The Application will continue to be processed against only those named respondents and the style of cause is amended to remove this individual.

Registrar to Schedule Hearing

8The Registrar will schedule a two-hour hearing by conference call for the purpose of hearing submissions on the issues set out in the Application and Response.

9The applicant should be prepared to proceed first during the conference call. The applicant should make submissions about why he believes that there has been a contravention of the Minutes of Settlement. In addition, if the applicant takes the position that the Minutes of Settlement should be set aside whether because of duress or otherwise, he should provide full submissions in support along with any documents and case law.

10The respondents should be prepared to present any submissions in response.

11A Notice of Conference Call Hearing will follow from the Registrar’s Office. The parties shall deliver to each other and file with the Tribunal submissions setting out any additional facts, documents or cases they intend to rely on at the hearing no later than 14 days after the date of this Case Assessment Direction.