Morphy v. Birch Glen Co-operative Homes, 2014 HRTO 1357

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Betty Morphy

Applicant

-and-

Birch Glen Co-operative Homes

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: September 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1357

Indexed as: Morphy v. Birch Glen Co-operative Homes

APPEARANCES

Betty Morphy, Applicant

Self-represented

Birch Glen Co-operative Homes, Respondent

Ryan Newell, Counsel

1The applicant filed this Application on January 17, 2014 under section 45.9(3) 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.

2On April 14, 2014 the Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling a teleconference hearing into this matter.

3A teleconference call was held on September 8, 2014 to hear the parties’ oral submissions with respect to the contravention of settlement allegation.

4The applicant has been a member of the respondent Co-op since June 2003. The applicant initiated a human rights complaint against the Co-op on August 13, 2013. On November 11, 2013 the parties resolved the Application by way of Minutes of Settlement. A Form 25 was filed with the Tribunal on November 12, 2013, indicating that the Application had been settled.

5According to the Minutes of Settlement the respondent was to offer the applicant the opportunity to internally transfer to unit 401, 405, 501, 505, 601 or 605 as soon as one of those units became available.

6The applicant indicated that information had been given to her during the first week of January that unit 505 had become available but was given to another person in the Co-op without it being offered to her as required by the Minutes of Settlement. The applicant did not disclose the name of the individual that provided her with the information. .

7According to the respondent, unit 505 had not become available and that the member currently in possession of unit 505 has been in possession of the unit since September 1, 2011, more than two years prior to the execution of the Minutes of Settlement.

8In reviewing the Co-op’s vacancy records, I have determined that, in fact, none of the specified units had become available since the execution of the Minutes of Settlement. I find that the applicant was misinformed and misled into believing otherwise.

9I find that there has not been a contravention of the Minutes of Settlement by the respondent.

10In these circumstances, the Tribunal orders that the Contravention of Settlement Application is dismissed.