HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Veronica LeBlanc
Applicant
-and-
City of Belleville, Bob Fargey and John Martin
Respondents
DECISION
Adjudicator: Brian Cook
Indexed as: LeBlanc v. Belleville (City)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Veronica LeBlanc, Applicant
Self-represented
City of Belleville, Bob Fargey and John Martin, Respondents
Vincent Panetta, Counsel
Introduction
1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2The Application was delivered to the respondents, who filed a Response.
3On the basis of these materials, it was not clear what settlement the applicant was alleging had been contravened. It was also not clear that the Contravention of Settlement Application had been filed within six months of the alleged contravention. The applicant was directed to provide a copy of the settlement she alleges was contravened and to provide clarification about her allegations.
4On January 22, 2014, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant. The applicant did not provide a copy of the settlement that she is alleging has been contravened. The respondents, however, have provided information in their response about two settlements reached with the applicant with respect to two separate Applications.
5The first Application was made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2007 under the pre-2008 Code (“the 2007 Application”). The 2007 Application was settled with the assistance of a Commission mediator in 2007 (“the 2007 settlement”). It appears that the settlement included an agreement to keep the applicant's job application on file and to consider it when an opening came up again.
6In 2009, the applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement with this Tribunal, alleging that the 2007 settlement of the 2007 Application had been contravened because she was not offered a job (“the 2009 Contravention of Settlement Application”). It appears that the 2009 Contravention of Settlement Application was also settled with an agreement that the respondent municipality would advise the applicant when a job opening was advertised (“the 2009 settlement”). The respondents state that an advertised job opening came up in June 2010 and that the applicant was sent notice of the advertised job opening at that time.
7In her January 2014 letter to the Tribunal, the applicant refers to the 2007 mediation session at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. She alleges that the respondents promised at that time to interview her if a position came open. She does not refer to the 2009 Contravention of Settlement Application or to any settlement of the 2009 Contravention of Settlement Application. She indicates that the municipality has hired eight people since 2010 and that she has not been interviewed. She refers to a letter that was sent to her by the respondents, which appears to be the letter referred to by the respondents that notified her that an advertised job opening had come up in 2010. The applicant has not provided a copy of any settlement document.
Analysis and conclusions
8Section 45.9 of the Code provides as follows:
45.9(1) If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, the settlement is binding on the parties.
(2) If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, the Tribunal may, on the joint motion of the parties, make an order requiring compliance with the settlement or any part of the settlement.
(3) If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, a party who believes that another party has contravened the settlement may make an application to the Tribunal for an order under subsection (8),
(a) within six months after the contravention to which the application relates; or
(b) if there was a series of contraventions, within six months after the last contravention in the series.
9Since the applicant has not provided a copy of the settlement that she alleges has been contravened, it is not clear if the applicant is alleging that the 2007 settlement or the 2009 settlement have been contravened, or if she is alleging that both have been contravened. She has also not clarified whether the present Contravention of Settlement was filed within six months after the alleged contravention to which the Contravention of Settlement relates.
10It appears that in 2009 the applicant alleged that the respondents had contravened the 2007 settlement. The 2009 Contravention of Settlement Application was in turn settled.
11If the present Contravention of Settlement Application relates to the 2007 settlement, it must be dismissed, either because it has been filed more than six months after the alleged contravention or because the applicant has already filed a Contravention of Settlement Application in regard to the 2007 Application, which was settled. It would be an abuse of process for the Tribunal to now consider whether the 2007 settlement was contravened since that is a matter that has already been settled between the parties.
12On the basis of the information provided by the respondents, the 2009 settlement required the respondents to notify the applicant of the next advertised job opening. The respondents were not required to notify the applicant of all subsequent job openings. The applicant has not provided a copy of the settlement and has not disputed the respondents’ information about the terms of the 2009 settlement.
13If the present Contravention of Settlement Application is intended to allege that the respondents did not notify the applicant of the next job opening in 2010, the present Contravention of Settlement, filed in 2013, was not filed within six months of the alleged contravention in 2010. On the basis of the information before me, there is no basis to consider an allegation that there was a continuing contravention of settlement after 2010 because the settlement in question did not oblige the respondents to do anything beyond notifying the applicant of the next job opening.
14For these reasons, the Contravention of Settlement Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 14th day of February, 2014.
“Signed By”
Brian Cook
Vice-chair