DiCiaula v. Callan Property Management Group, 2015 HRTO 1437

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sophy DiCiaula

Applicant

-and-

Callan Property Management Group and Rita Camelleri

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: October 28, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 1437

Indexed as: DiCiaula v. Callan Property Management Group

APPEARANCES

Sophie DiCiaula, Applicant

Self-represented

Callan Property Management Group and Rita Camelleri, Respondents

Paul Dalahunty, Representative

1This is an Application filed by the applicant pursuant to section 45.9(3) of the Code. The applicant alleges that the respondents have breached the Minutes of Settlement for Application 2014-18972-I by failing to pay her $4,000.00 by June 12, 2015. In their Response, the respondents state that they mailed a cheque to the applicant in the amount of $4,000.00 on June 10, 2015.

2A hearing was held in this case on October 23, 2015, by telephone conference call. All parties participated.

3The respondents acknowledge that the applicant has not received the monies contemplated by the Minutes of Settlement. The respondents take the position that the applicant has breached the confidentiality provision of the Minutes of Settlement and accordingly they will not pay the applicant the agreed sum. The respondents have not filed a breach of settlement Application.

4The respondents also argue that the applicant is going to testify against the respondents in another proceeding brought by a friend of the applicant.

Decision

5The Application is allowed. While the respondents initially attempted to deliver the settlement monies to the applicant they acknowledge that the cheque was not cashed and they do not know what happened to it. The respondents now take the position that because the applicant has breached the Minutes of Settlement they are relieved from paying her the settlement monies.

6Assuming without deciding that I could consider this defence to their non-payment I am not satisfied that the respondents have established a breach of settlement by the applicant.

7The Minutes of Settlement included a confidentiality agreement the material portions of which required that the parties:

…maintain the strict confidentiality of the these Minutes of Settlement with the exception that the applicant may disclose them to her immediate family, legal and financial advisors…

Under no circumstances will the Applicant disclose any information from this mediation to David Rochetti.

8The respondents rely on the following passage from an email allegedly sent by David Rochetti, a friend of the applicant’s to the respondents and the Tribunal in another proceeding:

I’m sure by now that the hrto has figured out that paul (a principal of the organizational respondent in this case) is a liar and cannot be trusted. I would not be surprised if paul has been in hrto in the past or of ever breached anything anything he said or signed with the hrto in the past.

9The respondents argue that it is clear to them that this passage above establishes that the applicant has breached the confidentiality provisions of the Minutes of Settlement. I do not agree. At best it seems to me that this passage might support the inference that the applicant might have disclosed that she had filed a breach of settlement Application. In my view, the disclosure of these bare facts would not constitute a breach of the terms of the Minutes of Settlement. In any event even assuming that the disclosure that a settlement was reached and then breached could be considered a breach of settlement, the fact that the applicant has filed a breach of settlement is a matter of public record and accordingly in my view a breach can not be established in the circumstances. If the parties intended to require that they not disclose the facts of a settlement and any subsequent dispute about an alleged breach they ought to have made that explicit. In my view the language agreed at mediation is not sufficiently specific to prevent the disclosure of these facts, if that is what occurred. I note in passing that the applicant denies telling Dave Rochetti anything at all about her Application or its settlement.

10The respondents also argued that the applicant is intending to give evidence against them in another proceeding brought by Dave Rochetti. The respondents argued that by complying with the settlement they would be paying the applicant to testify against them.

11The respondents position on this point is problematic. In my view, there is nothing in the Minutes of Settlement that preclude the applicant from testifying in another proceeding. The fact that the applicant may be testifying is not a reason justifying the respondent to refuse to do something that they contracted to do.

Order

12The respondents will pay to the applicant the sum of $4,000 together with prejudgement interest at the rate of 1% on the entire sum of $4,000 from June 12, 2015 the date by which this amount should have been paid to the applicant. Post judgment interest is also payable by the respondent at the rate of 2% from the date of this decision.