Bishop v. Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities), 2015 HRTO 790

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Richard-Benjamin Bishop

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Student Financial Services Branch

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: June 15, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 790

Indexed as: Bishop v. Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities)

APPEARANCES

Richard-Benjamin Bishop, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Student Financial Services Branch, Respondent

Fatema Dada, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging that the respondent contravened the terms of the settlement reached between the parties.

2On June 23, 2014, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) that settled an application in which the applicant had alleged that he experienced discrimination as a person with a disability who had applied for financial assistance through one of the respondent’s student assistance programs.

3The applicant alleges the respondent has breached the term of the MOS which stated that the respondent would pay the applicant a sum of money “to resolve this matter”.

4The parties attended an in-person hearing and made submissions.

BACKGROUND

5The applicant had applied for financial assistance through the respondent’s Bursary for Students with Disabilities program. He had been granted funds to purchase a computer and printer but had been denied his request for a tablet device which he claimed he needed because of his disability. This denial formed part of the allegations of discrimination made in the application.

6Both parties agreed one of the settlement terms was the payment to the applicant of a sum of money to cover the costs of purchasing the tablet device which had been previously denied.

7The applicant testified that as he left the mediation on June 23, 2014, he asked a representative for the respondent if he needed to provide any receipts other than for tutoring and that the representative said, “No”.

8The representative who the applicant says engaged with him in this discussion about receipts was not present at this hearing. The respondent was therefore not able to dispute the fact that this discussion had in fact taken place or to provide any clarity on what the representative meant when he said, “No”.

9The applicant received a letter dated July 25, 2014 from the respondent. This letter was titled, “receipt submission reminder”. The letter stated that the respondent “had yet to receive receipts for your computer and printer and additional tutoring services”.

10The applicant stated that it was his understanding from the wording of the MOS and his discussion regarding receipts with the respondent’s representative that the technology issue was fully settled by the MOS. He stated that this meant that he did not have to do anything further about the funding for technology including providing receipts for the money had had been provided prior to the date when the MOS were signed.

11When asked by the respondent, the applicant did admit that he had received a number of letters that were similar to the July 25, 2014 letter when he had received funds from the respondent in the past.

12After he got the July 25, 2014 letter, the applicant sent an email to the respondent indicating that he had received the letter and was asking for an explanation as to why he had to provide receipts for technology as it was his understanding that the matter was settled.

13The applicant received a letter from the respondent date August 18, 2014 in response to the applicant’s inquiry about needing to file receipts. The letter states that the receipts requested are in relation to the funding the applicant received in the 2013-14 academic year, specifically the funding for the computer and printer and the tutoring services. The letter states that this funding was distinct from the settlement which dealt with eligibility for equipment for which the applicant had not received funding. The letter further states:

Taking into account that the Minutes of Settlement were reached after consideration of your eligibility computer and printer equipment, however, the Ministry will not require receipts for the $2,200 which you received for a computer and printer.

14The applicant filed the Application for Contravention of Settlement on August 29, 2014.

THE LAW

15Subsection 45.9(3) of the Code states:

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).

SUBMISSIONS

16The applicant submits that given the wording and his understanding of the MOS, he felt that the technology issue was been fully settled and that since the cost of the tutoring services were never brought to the Tribunal these were the only services for which he should have been asked to provide receipts.

17The applicant stated that it is true that in the normal practice of the respondent those who receive funds do have to provide receipts for all items claimed. He stated that normally he would have provided receipts for items purchased with his bursary funds. He believed that the purchase of the computer and printer was a different situation because he had brought an application to the Tribunal that was resolved through the MOS. It is his position that because there was an exception made about receipts and because of the MOS, the situation cannot be viewed as “business as usual”.

18The applicant submits that the MOS covered all the technology issues, including the computer and printer that had been funded, and that “to resolve this matter” meant that all issues with respect to technology were resolved when the MOS were signed. It is his position that when the respondent sent the letter requesting copies of receipts for the desktop and printer, this was a breach of that settlement term.

19The respondent submits that in the original application to the Tribunal the applicant alleges he experienced discrimination in service because he had been denied funding for an IPad because it was the respondent’s policy that it could not provide funding for both a desktop computer and a tablet. The applicant was seeking further funding and monetary compensation for the denial of that funding.

20The respondent submits that the letters sent to the applicant requesting receipts for the desktop, printer and tutoring cannot be seen as a breach of settlement. Although it was not clearly stated in the MOS, the settlement term in which the respondent was to pay the applicant a sum of money was to cover the cost of the IPad. This funding was completely separate from the funding for the desktop and printer and tutoring. The respondent submits that this is clear because the funding for the desktop and the printer had been granted and provided to the applicant at the time that the MOS were negotiated and signed.

21The respondent submits that the July 25, 2014 letter is a standard letter that is automatically generated to students who have received funding and who have not submitted all the required receipts. The applicant would have been very familiar with this standard request for receipts because, as he admitted, he had received similar letters in the past.

22The respondent submitted that in the alternative if the Tribunal were to find that the request for receipts was a breach of the MOS, it must be noted that in August 2014 the respondent decided not to impose the requirement that the applicant provide receipts. The respondent submits that therefore, even if the Tribunal were to find a breach it is very minimal.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

23The allegations of the breach of the MOS appear to be based on the meaning of the words, “to resolve this matter” and whether “this matter” means all issues around funding for technology that the applicant had requested.

24In Eli Lilly v. Novopharm Ltd., 1998 CanLII 791 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129, Iacobucci J. stated (at para. 54) that “the contractual intent of the parties is to be determined by reference to the words they used in drafting the document” and (at para. 55) that “it is unnecessary to consider any extrinsic evidence at all when the document is clear and unambiguous on its face”. Unless there is ambiguity in the wording of the document, extrinsic evidence regarding the subjective intentions of the parties is inadmissible pursuant to the parole evidence rule (see paras. 56 to 58).

25I find that a reading of the entire MOS make it clear that the words “resolve this matter” were intended to mean resolve the Application. The MOS begin with the following:

The Applicant filed an Application in Tribunal pursuant to s. 34 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-19, as amended, alleging a violation of the Code by the Respondent; and

• The parties agree to the full and final settlement of the Application;

26It cannot be said that these words are ambiguous. The “matter” referenced in the term of the MOS clearly means the Application.

27Further, there is nothing in the MOS that indicate that the applicant did not have to provide receipts for the desktop and the printer. Since the Application was based on the denial of funding for the IPad, I cannot agree that “resolve this matter” meant all issues pertaining to all technology that the applicant had requested be funded by the respondent.

28In my opinion, the meaning of the term is clear and I therefore do not have to consider the parties’ understanding of the term.

29For these reasons, I find that the respondent did not breach the MOS and the Application is dismissed.

ORDER

30This Application for contravention of settlement is dismissed.