Vashishtha v. AA Cars @ Truck Rentals, 2014 HRTO 865

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Lukesh Vashishtha

Applicant

-and-

AA Cars @ Truck Rentals

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: June 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 865

Indexed as: Vashishtha v. AA Cars @ Truck Rentals

APPEARANCES

Lukesh Vashishtha, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant alleges that the respondent breached a settlement in contravention of section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The respondent did not file a Response to the Contravention of Settlement Application (the “Application”). The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction on March 26, 2014, warning the respondent about the consequences of failing to file a Response. The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a Response within 10 days of the date of the Case Assessment Direction if it wished to participate in the proceeding.

3The respondent did not file a Response. By Interim Decision 2014 HRTO 621, issued May 1, 2014, the Tribunal held the respondent was deemed to have accepted all of the allegations set out in the Application. It also held the respondent was deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

Facts

4Under the settlement dated January 17, 2014, the respondent agreed to pay the applicant $700.00 by February 1, 2014. The respondent did not make the payment. On February 14, 2014, the applicant filed this Application. As noted above, the respondent did not respond to the Application.

Analysis

5Section 45.9(8) of the Code sets out the Tribunal’s power to remedy contraventions of settlements. It states that the Tribunal may make “any order that it considers appropriate to remedy the contravention.” As noted in Matos v. Transplay, 2010 HRTO 2527 at para. 17, “the power to remedy a contravention of settlement is tied to the harm caused as a result of the contravention.” See also Xitimul v. Marriott Hotels of Canada, 2011 HRTO 1867 and Francis v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 2018.

6I find that the respondent has breached the settlement entered into by the parties by failing to pay the amount set out in the settlement. As a remedy for the respondent’s breach of the settlement, the applicant has requested that the Tribunal order the respondent to pay the applicant the unpaid settlement monies and additional monetary compensation for the harm caused by the breach.

7The applicant testified about the impact of the respondent’s failure to pay the amount owing under the January 17, 2014 settlement, money that he states was owing from one year before. The applicant is frustrated and upset by the respondent’s complete disregard of its obligations under the settlement. In support of the request for additional monetary compensation arising out of the breach of settlement, the applicant stated compensation should be ordered because of the respondent’s disregard of the terms of the settlement and because the breach affected him both physical and mentally.

8I order that the respondent immediately pay the applicant the full amount owing under the terms of the settlement. In light of the remedial nature of the Code, as well as the private and public importance of complying with settlement terms, I find that it is appropriate in the circumstances of this Application to award a further sum of $200.00 to the applicant as monetary compensation for the harm caused as a result of the respondent’s breach of settlement. This amount is inclusive of pre-judgment interest. I award post-judgment interest from the date of this Decision calculated pursuant to s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

Order

9In light of the above, the Application for Contravention of Settlement is granted. The respondent shall immediately pay the following amounts to the applicant by certified cheque or money order:

a. The $700.00 owing to the applicant under the terms of the settlement;

b. $200.00 in monetary compensation arising out of the breach of settlement; and,

c. Post-judgment interest from the date of this Decision calculated pursuant to s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act.