Zurkowski v. Cargill Limited Canada, 2013 HRTO 95

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Ryszard Zurkowski Applicant

-and-

Cargill Limited Canada Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Ena Chadha Date: January 21, 2013 Citation: 2013 HRTO 95 Indexed as: Zurkowski v. Cargill Limited Canada

1The applicant filed this Application for Contravention of Settlement (Form 18), on October 5, 2012, pursuant to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging that the respondent breached a settlement entered into by the parties. The applicant alleges that the respondent is not respecting their agreement and did not pay him the settlement money.

2The respondent filed a Form 19 Response to the Application on October 18, 2012. The respondent indicates that the parties were involved in a grievance resolution and that there was no formal settlement of an application filed with the Tribunal. The respondent noted that the applicant withdrew his previously deferred application and the Tribunal’s file was closed on September 24, 2012. The respondent submits that, in any event, it complied with terms of the grievance settlement and made payment of the settlement funds to the applicant. The respondent indicates that it understood that, with payment of the settlement funds, the applicant intended upon withdrawing this Application.

BACKGROUND

3On November 15, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) noting that it is unclear whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the Application given the applicant’s failure to provide a copy of the written settlement and the respondent’s position that there is no formal settlement with respect to a section 34 or 35 application.

4The CAD required the applicant to write to the Tribunal within 7 days confirming whether or not he intended to proceed with this Application. If the applicant intended to proceed with this Application, the applicant was required to provide a copy of the settlement and indicate with specificity what terms or aspects of settlement the applicant alleges that the respondent breached.

5The CAD stated that if the applicant failed to comply, the Tribunal would deem the Application to have been abandoned.

DECISION

6A contravention of settlement application is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction only if a settlement relates to a previous section 34 or 35 application, the settlement is written and signed by the parties and the contravention of settlement application is filed within six months after the contravention or last contravention in a series.

7Rule 24.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure required the applicant to file a copy of the written settlement alleged to have been contravened, together with the Form 18 (Application for Contravention of Settlement); however, in the present case, the applicant failed to provide a copy of the written settlement.

8The applicant did not file submissions in compliance with the CAD setting out his intentions and failed to provide any explanation for the missing settlement documentation. The timeline for providing this information has elapsed.

9It appears that the applicant has abandoned the Application and that the Application is outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

10Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.