James LeClair v. Deplaedt Enterprises Limited, 2014 HRTO 29

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

James LeClair

Applicant

-and-

Deplaedt Enterprises Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: January 8, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 29

Indexed as: LeClair v. Deplaedt Enterprises Limited

APPEARANCES

James LeClair, Applicant

Self-represented

Deplaedt Enterprises Limited, Respondent

William Deplaedt, Self-represented

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application dated June 25, 2013 and filed under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging contravention of Minutes of Settlement between the parties dated June 14, 2013.

2By Case Assessment Direction (“CAD”) dated July 24, 2013, the Tribunal directed that a one-hour teleconference hearing be held to hear any evidence and submissions about whether there has been a contravention of the Minutes of Settlement and, if so, what the appropriate remedy may be.

3By letter dated September 14, 2013, the Tribunal scheduled the teleconference hearing for October 24, 2013 from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m.

4The only issue raised in the Contravention of Settlement Application filed by the applicant is his assertion that on June 23, 2013 some unidentified “manager” communicated to some unidentified “floor staff” about the Minutes of Settlement on Facebook. This is alleged to have contravened para. 3 of the Minutes, which requires the parties to maintain strict confidentiality of the Minutes of Settlement. With regard to the respondent, there is an exception to permit the respondent to disclose the Minutes of Settlement as necessary to implement its terms.

5Pursuant to a further CAD dated October 4, 2013, the applicant was directed to provide to the respondent and file with the Tribunal a printout or electronic copy of the Facebook comment that is alleged to have contravened the Minutes of Settlement, together with information about who is alleged to have posted this comment and to whom any such comment was made.

6In response to this Direction, the applicant filed voluminous material setting out a variety of Facebook communications. Of these printouts, the only one that is alleged to have been in contravention of the Minutes of Settlement arises out of a Facebook message posted by someone named Wanda J. Daye on June 23, 2013 that states in large capital letters “do not read the next sentence” and then underneath in smaller bold letters states “you little rebel I like you”. This appears to show up on the Facebook page of Shirley Gibson, who is the applicant’s spouse.

7Based upon the timing and content of this Facebook message, the applicant would like me to assume that this Facebook message refers to the settlement and that the respondent therefore must have communicated the contents of the settlement to Ms. Daye in violation of para. 3 of the Minutes of Settlement. In my view, there simply is no basis upon which to make any such assumption. First, it is not clear to me that Ms. Daye’s Facebook message even refers to the settlement. I appreciate that this message was posted nine days after the date of the settlement. However, I note that the Minutes of Settlement were between the applicant and the respondent company and stemmed from a human rights application filed by the applicant himself. This was not a settlement of an application filed by the applicant’s spouse nor was the applicant’s spouse a party to the Minutes of Settlement at issue. In this regard, it is notable that the Facebook message refers to the applicant’s spouse as a “little rebel” and not to the applicant himself.

8In any event, even were I to assume that the Facebook message in some way referred to the settlement between the respondent company and the applicant, the applicant simply failed to provide any evidence to support that the respondent breached confidentiality of the Minutes of Settlement in violation of para. 3. If this message was about the settlement, there was no evidence presented by the applicant regarding who, if anyone, informed Ms. Daye about the settlement. I asked the applicant whether he had inquired of Ms. Daye to seek to ascertain what her message was referring to, and, if the message did refer to the settlement, who told her about the settlement and what was said to her. The applicant stated that he had no communication with Ms. Daye following the Facebook message, and so did not have any such information. In the absence of any evidence either that the Facebook message posted by Ms. Daye even referred to the settlement or, if it did, who told her about the settlement and the contents of any such communication, there simply is no evidentiary basis to support the applicant’s allegation that para. 3 of the Minutes of Settlement was contravened by the respondent.

9Another issue addressed at the hearing arose out of the Response filed by the respondent. In its Response, the respondent stated that the only communications that had taken place in relation to the settlement were an e-mail sent to the respondent’s management team on June 25, 2013 asking them to complete the Human Rights 101 training and a discussion about this training at a management meeting that day. It is stated that at no time was the Tribunal, the applicant or his spouse ever referenced in these communications. A copy of the June 25, 2013 e-mail was provided with the Response.

10In subsequent materials, the applicant raised an issue about a person named Karen Baker having been copied on this e-mail. This person was not identified in the Minutes of Settlement as part of the respondent’s management team (apparently because she was absent on sick leave at the time the settlement was concluded). However, I note that there was no disclosure of the Minutes of Settlement in the June 25, 2013 e-mail. In order to succeed with an allegation of an improper communication to Ms. Baker, the applicant would need to be able to provide evidence that the Minutes of Settlement were communicated to her (as opposed to the need for her to complete human rights training) and that any such communication was not covered by the exception as set out in para. 3 of the Minutes. No such evidence was provided by the applicant at the hearing.

11The foregoing issues are the only issues that were the subject of the hearing on October 24, 2013. I am aware from the applicant’s correspondence to the Tribunal that he raised a variety of other allegations, relating to an alleged motor vehicle incident and the reporting of this and other issues to the police. None of these issues were the subject of the Contravention of Settlement Application and were not addressed at the hearing. The evidence and submissions of the parties at the hearing were restricted to the alleged violations of the confidentiality provision of the Minutes of Settlement.

12For the foregoing reasons, the Application is dismissed.