HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Julie Wilson
Applicant
-and-
Work Able Centres, a Division of Centric Disability Management Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Alan G. Smith
Indexed as: Wilson v. Work Able Centres
APPEARANCES
Julie Wilson, Applicant ) Self-represented
Work Able Centres a Division of )
Centric Disability Management Inc., )
Respondent ) Thomas Stefanik, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed this Application on December 6, 2011, under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement arising out of the applicant’s previous Application.
2The applicant submits that, according to the Minutes of Settlement, executed on November 18, 2011, the respondent agreed to mail to the applicant’s residence in Sudbury, Ontario, a cheque for $9,000.00 within two weeks of the date of settlement. The applicant alleges that the respondent violated this aspect of the agreement when the cheque failed to be delivered by December 6, 2011.
3The respondent filed a Response on December 15, 2011, seeking to have the settlement enforced and asking the Tribunal to dismiss the Application.
4On December 29, 2011, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction scheduling a teleconference hearing into this matter. A teleconference call was held before me on April 11, 2012. The parties each made oral submissions with respect to the contravention of settlement allegation.
FACTS
5The applicant did not dispute the respondent’s version of the facts:
a) The Minutes of Settlement dated November 18, 2011, provided that, “a cheque in this amount [$9,000] shall be mailed to the Applicant’s home address within two weeks of the date of this settlement.”
b) The respondent received the present Application on December 6, 2011;
c) The $9,000 cheque was couriered to the applicant on December 7, 2011, and received by the applicant at her residence in Sudbury, Ontario, on December 8, 2011;
SUBMISSIONS
6In its written submissions the respondent argued that the present Application is moot, given that the settlement monies have been paid, albeit a few days later than apparently contemplated in the Minutes of Settlement. Therefore, respondent contends, the breach was a trivial one.
7In oral submissions the respondent noted that the Minutes of Settlement required that the cheque be “mailed” by November 29, 2011. Canada Post’s “delivery standards” allow for regular “letter mail” sent from Toronto to Sudbury to arrive within three days. Therefore, if the required time limit had been adhered to the latest the cheque would have been delivered on December 2, 2011. Thus, the payment was, at most, six days late.
8In oral submissions the applicant alleges that that she felt like she had been, “slapped in the face” by not receiving the funds by the agreed upon time. By way of redress the applicant seeks to have the “confidentiality clause” in the settlement agreement rescinded. The applicant submits that “punitive” action needs to be taken against the respondent.
9The applicant agreed that she had no evidence that the breach had been intentional on the part of the respondent.
ANALYSIS
10Section 45.9(8) of the Code sets out the Tribunal’s power to remedy contraventions of settlements and states that the Tribunal may make “any order that it considers appropriate to remedy the contravention.” The object of the Code is therefore to remedy the breach and not punish or penalize the contravening party. As noted in Matos v. Transplay, 2010 HRTO 2527 at para. 17, “the power to remedy a contravention of settlement is tied to the harm caused as a result of the contravention.” See also, Xitimul v. Marriott Hotels of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1867 and Francis v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 2018.
11In the present case, there is no doubt that the respondent has fulfilled its obligations under the Minutes of Settlement. Upon being alerted to the missed payment deadline, the respondent promptly undertook to remedy the mistake by sending a cheque out immediately. I agree with the respondent that the delay in the applicant receiving the settlement funds amounted to, at most, six days.
12I am not convinced that the applicant suffered harm beyond minor inconvenience and upset. While there was a breach of the strict terms of the Minutes of Settlement, the circumstances of this case do not give rise to a remedial order of the magnitude sought by the applicant. I therefore reject the applicant’s submission that the confidentiality provision in the settlement should be rescinded and note that she made no other requests with regard to remedy for the breach.
13In Budan-Hughes v. Clemmer Steelcraft Technologies, 2009 HRTO 1618, the Tribunal considered the amount of damages, if any, to be awarded to an applicant for an eight-day delay in receiving a payment pursuant to Minutes of Settlement. In that case, as with the present situation, there was no evidence that the applicant raised the matter with the respondent prior to filing an application and the matter was rectified as soon as that Application was filed. In dismissing the Request for Reconsideration, the Tribunal noted at paragraph 9:
In view of the minor nature of any breach of the agreement on the applicant’s version of the facts, these are not circumstances in which proceeding with the Application could override the public interest in the finality of decisions. It is a general legal principle that ‘the law does not concern itself with trifles’ (‘de minimus non curat lex’): see, for example, Ontario v. Canadian Pacific, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 1031 at para. 65. In the circumstances, where there is an extremely minor alleged breach of settlement and notice was sent to the applicant in the manner he requested but he failed to respond, there is no reason to grant this Request for Reconsideration.
14Similarly on point is Adorgloh v. Sentrex Communications, 2010 HRTO 2524, where the Tribunal refused to award any remedy to the applicant for the respondent’s short delay in making a settlement payment. See also, Matos, above, where the Tribunal also declined to award the applicant any remedy for a delayed payment of eight days and Francis, above, where a ten day delay warranted no remedy.
15In sum, the minor delay in this case amounted to a trivial breach of the Minutes of Settlement. Therefore it is not appropriate to award a remedy for contravention of the minutes of settlement beyond the terms of the original agreement of November 18, 2011.
ORDER
16The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto this 19th day of April, 2012
“signed by”
Alan G. Smith
Member