DeYoe v. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company of Canada, 2016 HRTO 1243

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Heather DeYoe

Applicant

-and-

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: September 22, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1243

Indexed as: DeYoe v. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company of Canada

APPEARANCES

Heather DeYoe, Applicant

Wade Morris, Counsel

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company of Canada, Respondent

Lisa Kwasek, Counsel

Introduction

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed under s. 45.9 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2On the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal makes the following order:

consent order

This application was brought on November 12, 2015 under s. 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code based on an alleged contravention of a settlement relating to the diminution of personal emergency leave days under the Employment Standards Act, 2002 for disability-related absences (the “Current Alleged Breach”). After the Respondent responded to the application, Vice-chair Cook made a Case Assessment Direction on December 16, 2015 ordering that this application proceed to an in-person hearing and that the parties exchange documents. In addition to seeking relief for the Current Alleged Breach, the current application seeks a declaration as to whether disability-related absences may be counted as personal emergency leave days which determination may fall outside the scope of s. 45.9(8). As a result, Ms. DeYoe (the applicant) is withdrawing her application for contravention of settlement in respect of the Current Alleged Breach. However, the withdrawal is without prejudice to Ms. DeYoe’s right to bring an s. 34 application to seek appropriate relief relating to the legal question of whether disability-related absences may be counted as personal emergency leave days. The Applicant, however, is precluded from making a claim for relief based on the Current Alleged Breach by way of any future s. 34 application, but this does not preclude the Applicant from bringing an application under s. 45.9 for any conduct in the future which the applicant alleges has breached the settlement, with the exception of any allegations relating to the Current Alleged Breach, and does not preclude the Applicant from making a future s. 34 application for an alleged breach of the Human Rights Code. The Registrar is requested to make all efforts to ensure any new application proceeds expeditiously.

3The applicant withdraws the Contravention of Settlement Application.

4The Tribunal’s file is closed accordingly.