Joan Crozier v. Genivar Inc. and Brian Jagger, 2013 HRTO 925

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Joan Crozier

Applicant

-and-

Genivar Inc. and Brian Jagger

Respondents

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price

Date: May 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 925

Indexed as: Crozier v. Genivar Inc.

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Joan Crozier, Applicant ) Self-represented

1On May 16, 2013, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal’s April 17, 2013, Decision, 2013 HRTO 643, in which I found that the corporate respondent had contravened Minutes of Settlement it entered into with the applicant and made an order for interest to remedy the contravention.

2The applicant’s Request is filed pursuant to s. 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.

3Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules states that reconsideration will not be granted unless the Tribunal is satisfied that:

a) there are new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case and that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier; or

b) the party seeking reconsideration was entitled to but, through no fault of its own, did not receive notice of the proceeding or a hearing; or

c) the decision or order which is the subject of the reconsideration request is in conflict with established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure and the proposed reconsideration involves a matter of general or public importance; or

d) other factors exist that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

4These four circumstances are also set out in section 2 of the Request for Reconsideration Form, which states: “Please check the reasons why you are making this Request for Reconsideration. Check all that apply.” In her Request, the applicant checked off the boxes for c) and d).

5The applicant’s Request does not identify any conflict between the Decision and established jurisprudence or Tribunal procedure. Nor does the applicant put forward any other factors that outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

6Rather, in her written submissions, the applicant indicates that she disagrees with the reasoning in the Decision and the remedy that was ordered by the Tribunal. This is not a basis for Reconsideration.

7Among other things, the applicant seems to take issue with the fact that I ordered the respondent to pay the applicant interest at the applicable pre-judgment interest rate in the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended. As I understand it, the applicant’s position is that the respondent should have been ordered to pay her interest at the applicable post-judgment interest from the date of the breach of the Minutes of Settlement. In my view, this is incorrect. Post-judgment interest is typically payable in respect of amounts that a party has been ordered to pay in a judgment, but has not paid. An order for pre-judgment interest was appropriate in this case where interest was payable, not because of the corporate respondent’s failure to comply with an order or judgment of the Tribunal, but as a result of a breach of contract, namely the parties’ Minutes of Settlement.

8Accordingly, the Request for Reconsideration is denied.