HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
J.N.
Applicant
-and-
Thames Valley District School Board
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty
Date: May 14, 2012
Citation: 2012 HRTO 970
Indexed as: J.N. v. Thames Valley District School Board
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
J.N., Applicant ) On her own behalf
[1] The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision addressing the respondent’s request for early dismissal of the Application because of timeliness and based on the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power to decide): [2011 HRTO 2153](https://www.minicounsel.ca/hrto/2011/2153). In the Interim Decision, the Tribunal held, among other things, that the parties had not raised any basis to conclude that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the Application.
[2] Upon further review, the Application appeared to give rise to an additional jurisdictional issue that was not raised by the parties in their submissions. The Application relates to an alleged contravention of minutes of settlement entered into pursuant to a complaint filed under the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the “Code”), prior to 2008 amendments coming into force. The minutes of settlement were effected under the old Part IV of the Code before the effective date of the amendments to the Code or during the six-month period referred to in subsection 53(2). Based on the materials filed by the parties, however, it appeared that the Ontario Human Rights Commission (“Commission”) had not approved the settlement agreement between the parties.
[3] Section 54 of the Code, as amended, states:
- Section 45.9 of the new Part IV applies to the enforcement of a settlement that,
(a) was effected by the Commission under the old Part IV before the effective date or during the six-month period referred to in subsection 53 (2); and
(b) was agreed to in writing, signed by the parties and approved by the Commission
[4] In a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated December 9, 2011, the Tribunal directed the parties to file additional submissions regarding:
1. Whether the minutes of settlement were effected by the Commission or approved by the Commission within the meaning of section 54 of the Code; and
2. Whether, in light of this, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the Application.
[5] The respondent did not file any submissions pursuant to the CAD.
[6] The applicant has filed written submissions, attaching correspondence from the Commission. The Commission stated that minutes of settlement between the parties were effected by the Commission. However, before closing its file in November 2008, the Commission inadvertently failed to approve the settlement. The Commission has now corrected that error and has approved the minutes of settlement. It submits that the applicant should not be penalized by the Commission’s handling of the settlement.
[7] I am satisfied that the conditions of section 54 of the Code have now been met. The settlement at issue in this Application was effected by the Commission, agreed to in writing, and signed by the parties. It has now been approved by the Commission. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the issues raised in the Application.
[8] I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of May, 2012.
“Signed by”
Michelle Flaherty
Vice-chair