Marc Grandmaison v. Sudbury Regional Hospital, 2012 HRTO 2321

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marc Grandmaison Applicant

-and-

Sudbury Regional Hospital, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1623 and Dave Shelefontiuk Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: December 10, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2321 Indexed as: Grandmaison v. Sudbury Regional Hospital

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Marc Grandmaison, Applicant ) Self-represented Sudbury Regional Hospital, Respondent ) Diane Barbeau, Representative

1The applicant filed this Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18), on June 27, 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 resolving a previous human rights application.

2The applicant provided a copy of the Minutes of Settlement dated October 12, 2010. The Minutes of Settlement were entered into by the applicant, the respondent Hospital and the respondent union. Although no individual respondent is listed as a party to the Minutes of Settlement, the applicant filed this Application as against an individual respondent, a representative of the respondent union. In answering Question 6 of the Application, which requires identification of the term of the settlement that the applicant alleges was contravened, the applicant simply stated “Part 2 of the settlement. More than one respondent should have paid.” The applicant offers no other details about what aspects of the settlement he alleges the respondents failed to adhere to or uphold.

3On July 6, 2012, the respondent Hospital filed a Response to the Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 19) stating that it has met all of its obligations under the settlement and that there has been no contravention of any of the provisions of the settlement. The respondent highlights that, in accordance with para. 8 of the Minutes of Settlement, the applicant withdrew his previous application and that the respondent consented to the withdrawal. The respondent Hospital noted that a settlement cheque was issued to the applicant on October 20, 2010 and the cheque deposited and funds cleared on October 26, 2010. The respondent argues that, if the applicant believes that some part of the October 12, 2010 settlement was not satisfied, then he should have raised this matter sooner.

4On October 17, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (“Notice”) on the basis that the Application may be untimely in light of section 45.9 of the Code, which provides that a breach of settlement application must be filed with the Tribunal within six months after the contravention to which the application relates. The Notice also stated that it is not immediately apparent from the Application why the applicant is of the view that the respondents failed to meet the terms of the Minutes of Settlement. The Notice directed to applicant to file written submissions explaining the delay and why he believes the respondents breached the terms of the settlement.

5The applicant filed written submissions on November 11, 2012. The applicant indicates that the delay in filing this Application was due to the fact that he only learned in April 2012 that the Tribunal had closed the previous application. The applicant contends that he was never notified by the respondent union that in August 2011 the Tribunal had requested the parties to sign a Form 25 in order to close the file related to his previous case. The applicant further argues that the Application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to provide him with a fair resolution of the dispute. Lastly, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (“Request”) asking the Tribunal to defer the Application on the basis that he has a matter before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (“WSIAT”).

6On November 22, 2012, the respondent Hospital filed a response opposing the applicant’s Request to defer on the basis that this Application should be dismissed because the respondent satisfied all of its obligations under 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 an alleged breach, nor indicate the term of the settlement that the applicant seeks to enforce.

8Based on my review of the Application and the applicant’s submissions, it appears that the applicant is not arguing that the respondents breached the settlement by failing to fulfill or comply with a provision of the agreement. The applicant did not identify how or in which specific ways the respondents allegedly contravened any terms of the settlement. Rather, the applicant is asserting that another respondent party, presumably the union, “should have paid”. The applicant is, in effect, arguing that he was entitled to be paid compensation by more than one respondent and, as a consequence, the Tribunal should find the respondents to be liable for contravening the settlement.

9The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over an Application for Contravention of Settlement where there is an allegation that a term of the settlement has been breached and the Tribunal can only make an order under section 45.9(8) of the Code if the Tribunal determines that a party has contravened the agreement: see for example, Barrer v. Nipissing University, 2011 HRTO 1746, and Dopelhamer v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated, 2012 HRTO 1806.

10I reject the applicant’s suggestion that a breach of settlement exists because he now, two years after agreeing to a settlement, believes that he is entitled to compensation from more than one respondent. As stated in Dopelhamer, above at para. 9, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over a Contravention of Settlement Application simply because an applicant, after agreeing to a settlement in writing and signing it, becomes dissatisfied with the terms.

11This Application does not actually state what specific provision of the Minutes of Settlement was contravened and the applicant’s submissions do not provide any particulars as to the nature of the breach. As a consequence, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the Code to consider this Application for a Contravention of a Settlement.

12Accordingly, the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and must be dismissed. As a result, the Request to defer does not need to be addressed.