Anderson v. Easy Radiant Works, 2015 HRTO 1333

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Rachelle Anderson

Applicant

-and-

Easy Radiant Works

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mark Hart

Date: October 6, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1333

Indexed as: Anderson v. Easy Radiant Works

APPEARANCES

Rachelle Anderson, Applicant

Self-represented

Easy Radiant Works, Respondent

Bradley Troup, Counsel

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application dated March 20, 2015, alleging a breach of Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties on March 17, 2015, contrary to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2There is no dispute between the parties that on March 18, 2015, the day after the settlement was entered into by the parties, the respondent’s principal, S.C., sent the applicant a “friend” request on Facebook. This request was very upsetting to the applicant. Her position is that S.C.’s action in doing so effectively nullifies the settlement entered into between the parties.

3A teleconference hearing with the parties took place on July 13, 2015, to hear oral submissions regarding the applicant’s allegations.

4The applicant submitted that, by signing the Minutes of Settlement, she assumed that there would be some form of protection for her as the alleged victim of discrimination. She states that she assumed that S.C., as the principal of the respondent, would have to sign some kind of paperwork indicating that he would have no contact with her.

5The difficulty with the applicant’s submission is that this Tribunal’s jurisdiction under s. 45.9 of the Code is to enforce the terms of settlement as agreed upon by the parties. There simply is no provision in the Minutes of Settlement dated March 17, 2015 which speaks to the issue of S.C. having no future contact with the applicant.

6The applicant pointed to para. 3 of the Minutes of Settlement, which required her to maintain confidentiality of the terms of settlement, with limited exceptions. She states that she assumed that S.C. would be required to sign something similar. There are two problems with this submission. First, this confidentiality obligation under the terms of the settlement applies only to the applicant, and not to the respondent. But second, para. 3 of the Minutes of Settlement does not bar the applicant from contacting the respondent or S.C. or vice versa. It simply requires the applicant to maintain confidentiality of the settlement terms.

7I appreciate that the applicant regarded the post-settlement contact by S.C. to be unwelcome and upsetting. I raised with the respondent at the teleconference hearing that, entirely apart from whether S.C.’s actions were in breach of the settlement terms, any repeated unwelcome contact by S.C. towards the applicant potentially could give rise to an allegation of reprisal or perhaps some other alleged violation of the Code. I am confident that this kind of situation will not recur.

8In any event, there is simply no basis in the Application to support any breach of the Minutes of Settlement by the respondent based on S.C.’s post-settlement action.

ORDER

9For all of the foregoing reasons, the Application is dismissed.