HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Sharna Sugarman
Applicant
-and-
St. Lawrence College
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Date: March 30, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 664
Indexed as: Sugarman v. St. Lawrence College
APPEARANCES
Sharna Sugarman, Applicant ) Self-represented )
St. Lawrence College of Applied ) Siobhan O’Brien, Counsel Arts and Technology, Respondent )
[1] This is an Application for Contravention of Settlement (“the Application”) filed under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent breached a Memorandum of Settlement dated October 28, 2008 (“the Memorandum”), which settled a complaint the applicant had filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). The Memorandum was subsequently approved by the Commission in November 2008.
[2] The applicant filed an Application dated July 21, 2009 (“the July 2009 Application”), with the Tribunal, which was accepted by the Tribunal and assigned the file number 2009-03105-S. In February 2010, the applicant served the respondent with the July 2009 Application as well as one dated October 6, 2009 (collectively “the Applications”). On March 5, 2010, the respondent filed two Responses to the Application, one responding to the July 2009 Application (“the July 2009 Response”) and one responding to the October 6, 2009 Application (“the October 2009 Response”) (collectively “the Responses”) and requested that the two Applications be joined by the Tribunal and dealt with together.
[3] In addition to filing the Responses, the respondent filed a Response to a Request for Order During Proceedings (“Response to a RFOP”) requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the applicant’s Request for Order During Proceedings (“RFOP”). At the time, the Tribunal had not received a RFOP filed by the applicant. At the time of filing the Responses, the respondent was represented by different counsel and a different law firm from the one that represented the respondent during the hearing.
The Memorandum
[4] The relevant portions of the Memorandum are paragraphs 3, 7 (to the extent that it references a release), 9, 10, Exhibit A and the Release. They state:
The corporate respondent will place OHRC posters in visible areas of the campus such as the student association, student services and residences. The corporate respondent will take the complainant’s suggestions for other locales to the appropriate department for consideration (see Exhibit “A” for the list). The complainant will be notified of the outcome of this consideration.
The complainant agrees that this settlement is in full, final and complete settlement of this human rights complaint (Commission File No. JART-7BMKMA) and agrees to sign the attached Release. The complainant agrees to the terms of said Release.
The parties agree that they shall be bound by the provisions of this agreement until the Commission decides whether or not to approve the agreement in accordance with section 43 of the Code.
In the event that this agreement is approved by the Commission, it shall continue to bind the parties.
Exhibit A
Recommendations for locales to place Code cards or Human rights information.
- Library