Thompson v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2015 HRTO 864

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michael Thompson

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: June 29, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 864

Indexed as: Thompson v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care)

APPEARANCES

Michael Charles Thompson, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Respondent

Courtney Harris, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to services and contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”) because of disability.

BACKGROUND

2The applicant applied for financial assistance through the respondent’s Northern Health Travel Grant (NHTG) program. The NHTG can cover some of the costs associated with travelling from his northern community to a medical specialist or an approved health care facility.

3The respondent denied the applicant the NHTG. The applicant filed this Application alleging that in denying the NHTG, the respondent had violated his Code rights as a person with a disability.

4The applicant had previously been denied the NHTG in 2010 and at that time, he filed an application at the Tribunal raising similar allegations to those that are raised in this Application.

5The 2010 application was resolved when the parties signed Minutes of Settlement. The Minutes of Settlement contained a term stating that the settlement did not constitute an admission of liability by the respondent or a withdrawal of allegations by the applicant.

6The Minutes also contained this release:

The Applicant hereby releases the respondent from any and all applications, claims, demands, complaints or actions of any kind arising out of the events that gave rise to this application, including but not limited to claims under the common law, and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Applicant will not make any application, complaint or claim or bring any action against the Respondent and these Minutes of Settlement may be raised as a complete bar to any such application, claim, complaint or action.

7On March 9, 2015, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Code. The Tribunal noted that a review of this Application raised the issue of whether the applicant has signed a full and final release with respect to the same subject matter as this Application so that to proceed with this Application could amount to an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.

8On June 9, 2015, the Tribunal conducted the preliminary hearing. The applicant and the respondent both participated. This decision is based on their submissions, and the jurisprudence and documents filed by the parties which included the Minutes of Settlement signed on May 16, 2011.

THE LAW

9Section 45.1 of the Code, reads as follows:

The Tribunal may dismiss an application, in whole or in part, in accordance with its rules if the Tribunal is of the opinion that another proceeding has appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

10The Tribunal has interpreted section 45.1 as contemplating a two-step analysis. First, it must be determined whether there was a prior proceeding that dealt with the events and issues raised in this Application? If the answer to that question is yes, then the second stage of the analysis is whether or not the substance of this Application has been appropriately dealt with. See Campbell v. Toronto District School Board, 2008 HRTO 62.

11Section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.22, as amended, gives the Tribunal the power to make orders or give directions that it considers appropriate to prevent an abuse of its processes.

SUBMISSIONS

12The respondent submits that section 45.1 precludes re-litigation of issues regardless of whether these issues were resolved through settlement or a hearing; therefore, to allow this Application to proceed would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s processes.

13The respondent submits that the Minutes of Settlement signed in 2011 settled essentially the same matter that is at issue in this 2014 Application with the exception that the applicant was applying for travel to an appointment with a different doctor. The NHTG program has not changed at all and the criteria to qualify for the NHTG are the same. The respondent denied the applicant’s claim for the NHTG in 2014 and 2010 for the same reasons. In both instances, the application did not meet the qualifying criteria. The respondent claims that there is no discrimination and that the 2011 settlement term in which it is stated that the respondent does not admit any liability is consistent with this claim that there is no discrimination.

14The respondent further submits that in a situation where there is a signed release, it must be concluded that the Minutes of Settlement are a full and appropriate resolution to the application so long as there was no duress or other inappropriate behaviours.

15The respondent submits that Minutes of Settlement signed in 2011 must be considered in the context that the NHTG is an ongoing program and with ongoing relationships between the parties involved with this program. The text of the release must be broadly read and that in reading the words, “arising out of the events” the term “events” must be interpreted to mean the ongoing nature of this program. The term cannot be construed too narrowly and the Minutes cannot be read to apply only to the one application that was resolved by the Minutes. To adopt this interpretation, would mean that the respondent would never settle since most government programs are ongoing. The release signed must be interpreted to mean that the applicant is barred from making any further claims that arise out of the respondent’s finding that the applicant’s claim did not meet the qualifying criteria under the NHTG.

16The respondent relied on a number of Tribunal decisions including Dunn v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 2008 HRTO 149 (“Dunn”), to support the position that there is a strong public interest principle that is served by the understanding that there is finality in settlements.

17The applicant submits that the Application he filed in 2014 is different from that filed in 2010. In 2014, he had applied to attend a medical appointment with a different doctor and it was four years later. The Minutes of Settlement only apply to the time and events that gave rise to the 2010 Application. The release cannot be interpreted to include future claims.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

18The Tribunal has accepted that a settlement of a matter before an adjudicative body without a hearing on the issues can constitute a proceeding for the purposes of section 45.1. See for example, Jagdat v. Vertex Customer Management Canada, 2013 HRTO 530 and Dunn (above).

19I find that the 2010 Application and its resolution by way of settlement amount to a proceeding for the purposes of section 45.1. There is nothing to suggest that the Minutes of Settlement were not voluntarily executed by the parties.

20In deciding the second issue of whether the settlement appropriately dealt with the issues before the Tribunal in this current Application, I considered the events and allegations outlined in the two Applications and the language used by the Minutes of Settlement and in particular, the language of the release term. This term states,

Applicant hereby releases the respondent from any and all applications, claims, demands, complaints or actions of any kind arising out of the events that gave rise to this application (…). The Applicant will not make any application, complaint or claim or bring any action against the Respondent and these Minutes of Settlement may be raised as a complete bar to any such application, claim, complaint or action. (emphasis added)

21I find that the words “Applicant will not make any application, complaint or claim or bring any action” in the second sentence of the release term must be read together with the words, “this application” the first sentence. From this reading, I conclude that the release only applies to the events and allegations contained in the 2010 Application. Despite what the respondent may have intended in signing the Minutes there is no clear language from which it can be found that the release bars the applicant from making any future applications, complaints or claims that may arise from applications for funding from the NHTG made after May 2011. The principle of finality of settlements is not compromised by this finding as there is finality, however, it is the resolution of events and allegations that gave rise to the 2010 Application that became final when the Minutes of Settlement were signed in 2011. Allowing this Application to proceed is not an abuse of the Tribunal’s processes.

22For these reasons I find the Application may continue in the Tribunal’s process.

23The respondent shall file a complete Response within 30 days of the day of this Interim Order.

24I am not seized.