HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
John Dietz
Applicant
-and-
Municipality of Port Hope
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Jo-Anne Pickel
Indexed as: Dietz v. Port Hope (Municipality)
APPEARANCES
John Dietz, Applicant
John Morand, Counsel
Municipality of Port Hope, Respondent
Suzanne Hunt, Counsel
1This is a breach of settlement Application dated March 21, 2013, and filed under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application arises out of a settlement reached at mediation before the Tribunal on December 9, 2009.
Factual Background
2The relevant facts in this case are not in dispute.
3The applicant filed an Application in 2009 alleging that the respondent was discriminating against him because of disability and age contrary to the Code by charging him for written copies of Port Hope Council materials. The respondent provided online access to these materials free of charge. However, the applicant stated that he was not computer literate and that he had difficulty reading text on a computer monitor due to his visual disability. He also stated that, as a senior citizen on a fixed income, he could not afford the cost of the materials.
4The parties agreed to a settlement of the Application. The Minutes of Settlement (“Minutes”) were drafted by the Vice-chair who conducted the mediation and they were signed by the parties. The Minutes noted that the parties wished to settle all matters between them including the applicant’s Application to the Tribunal.
5The relevant clause of the Minutes is clause 3 which states as follows:
The Respondent shall make available for pick-up by the Applicant, without charge, paper copies of the agendas and supporting materials pertaining to meetings of the Port Hope Council, Committee of the Whole and Waterfront and Trail Committee, when they are publicly made available. The Respondents shall also make available to the Applicant minutes of meetings of the Commissioners of Port Hope Harbour, as adopted as soon as they are included in a Council agenda. This arrangement shall continue until 9 December 2010, and shall be renewed annually on receipt of a declaration similar to that appended in these minutes. The Respondents acknowledge that the Applicant’s requirements for accommodation may change.
6The applicant completed the declaration attached to the Minutes confirming the nature of his disability and his need for the written materials referred to in the Minutes. Among other things, the declaration stated that the applicant had a vision-related disability and that, as an accommodation, he required paper documents in 12 point Bookman font. The applicant has renewed the arrangement annually by filing a declaration in accordance with the clause above.
7In early 2013, the applicant requested that the respondent send him copies of the agendas of the budget committee free of charge. The respondent took the position that this request was not covered by the Minutes. The respondent advised the applicant that that it would provide the requested agendas to him on a cost recovery basis. In addition, the respondent continues to provide the materials specifically referred to in the Minutes to the applicant free of charge.
Submissions
8The applicant submitted that budget committee materials are included within the terms of the Minutes since the budget committee is a part of Port Hope Council. In addition, he submitted that his desire for the budget committee materials was a change in his “requirements for accommodation” within the meaning of the last sentence of clause 3 of the Minutes. According to the applicant, in agreeing to this sentence, the respondent agreed to provide other materials required by the applicant in written form free of charge.
9The respondent submitted that the applicant’s request does not fall within the terms of the Minutes. It notes that only certain committees are referred to in the Minutes and the budget committee is not listed. With respect to the last sentence of clause 3, the respondent submits that this sentence refers to the respondent’s acknowledgment that the applicant’s vision might improve or worsen over time. Accordingly, the respondent recognized that the applicant might require that the materials be printed in a larger or different font in the future.
Findings
10In a breach of settlement Application, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to interpreting the settlement that the parties reached by interpreting the words they used in the context of the settlement as a whole. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction does not extend to determining whether the settlement was fair or whether the settlement would amount to reasonable accommodation if the parties had proceeded to a hearing of the Application.
11Two questions arise in this case:
a. Are the budget committee materials requested by the applicant included within the materials specifically listed in the Minutes?
b. If not, does the last sentence of clause 3 entitle the applicant to receive the budget committee materials on the same terms as the other materials listed in the Minutes? (that is, in hard copy and free of charge)
12In relation to the first question, I find that materials from the budget committee do not fall within the materials listed in the Minutes. I do not agree with the applicant’s submission that he is entitled to these materials because the budget committee is part of Council. The parties specifically listed the committees covered by the Minutes and the budget committee was not one of them. Due to the reference to other specific committees, the reference to “Port Hope Council” in the Minutes does not include the budget committee or any other committee not specifically listed in clause 3. This interpretation is consistent with the exclusion principle of interpretation (expressio unius est exclusion alterius) which provides that a reference to one or more things of a particular class in a document may be regarded as impliedly excluding other things of that class.
13The second question requires an interpretation of the last sentence of clause 3 which states: “The Respondents acknowledge that the Applicant’s requirements for accommodation may change.” This sentence must be interpreted by taking into account the context of the Minutes including the content of other provisions and the nature of the Application being settled by the parties. I note that in paragraph 2, the parties refer to the applicant’s visual disability and “his need for written materials in paper copies”. As well, the declaration attached to the Minutes stated that the applicant required as an accommodation paper documents in 12 point Bookman font. In addition, the term “accommodation” has a very specific meaning in a human rights context. It refers to the arrangements put in place to fulfill a respondent’s duty to accommodate under human rights legislation.
14In my view, the last sentence of clause 3 is unambiguous when these contextual factors are taken into account. The “requirements for accommodation” referred to in clause 3 are the requirement that the applicant receive written materials printed in a certain font and point size. In my view, properly interpreted in the context of the settlement and Application as a whole, the last sentence of clause 3 means that the respondent acknowledged that the applicant’s disability or age-related requirements for accommodation might change. In my view, the term “requirements for accommodation” does not refer to the applicant’s desire to receive free of charge materials from committees or entities other than those listed in the Minutes. His desire to receive these other materials is not properly considered a “requirement for accommodation” since it is unrelated to his disability or age-related needs. Instead, the “requirements for accommodation” referred to in the last sentence of clause 3 refer to the applicant’s disability and/or age-related requirement to receive the materials specifically agreed to in clause 3 in the font and point size listed in the declaration filed with the respondent.
15Accordingly, the respondent did not breach the settlement reached by the parties by refusing to provide the applicant with budget committee materials free of charge. Given the relatively limited scope of the issues between the parties, one would hope that they will find a way to resolve these issues without the need for further litigation in this matter.
ORDER
16For the reasons set out above, the Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of July, 2013.
“Signed by”
Jo-Anne Pickel
Vice-chair