Boguslaw Bronicki v. Russell Food Equipment Ltd., 2016 HRTO 1299

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Boguslaw Bronicki

Applicant

-and-

Russell Food Equipment Ltd.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: October 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1299

Indexed as: Bronicki v. Russell Food Equipment Ltd.

APPEARANCES

Boguslaw Bronicki, Applicant

Self-represented

Russell Food Equipment Ltd., Respondent

Caroline Richard, Counsel

1The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement (the “Application”) on March 23, 2016 pursuant to section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In the Application, the applicant alleged that the respondent did not pay to the applicant the sum of $4,500.00 in general damages by March 13, 2016, as required in Minutes of Settlement (the “Minutes”) that resolved Tribunal Application 2015-21255-I. The applicant indicated that the respondent had not made the payment as of the date he filed this Application.

3The respondent filed a Response to the Application on April 6, 2016. The respondent acknowledged that it did not make the payment as required by March 13, 2016 due to an oversight. Allegedly, the respondent was unaware that the deadline had passed until its legal counsel received the applicant’s Application on March 23, 2016. The following day the respondent paid the sum of $4,500.00 to the applicant.

4The hearing of this matter took place by teleconference on October 4, 2016. There is no dispute that the Minutes required the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $4,500.00 in general damages by March 13, 2016. There is no dispute that the respondent paid the sum of $4,500.00 immediately after its counsel received the applicant’s Application on March 23, 2016.

analysis and decision

5The Tribunal’s remedial authority regarding a contravention of settlement is set out in section 45.9(8) of the Code, which states:

(8) If, on an application under subsection (3), the Tribunal determines that a party has contravened the settlement, the Tribunal may make any order that it considers appropriate to remedy the contravention.

6In Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 1563, the Tribunal concluded that settlement of an application before the Tribunal is no different than settlement of any other legal proceeding and, accordingly, the common law of contracts provided the appropriate principles to apply when determining a remedy under section 45.9(8). See also Keating v. 2229884 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1677.

7As noted in Glover, the remedy for breach of contract will generally be the enforcement of the contract and damages arising from the breach or damages that may have been reasonably contemplated by the parties. What is reasonably foreseeable to the parties must be determined on a case by case basis, but in my view it will generally be foreseeable that an applicant will suffer financial and emotional distress where the breach of settlement is protracted. I agree, however, with the decision in Glover that a breach of settlement per se does not give rise to an award of monetary compensation. The Tribunal has also recognized that a minor delay in meeting settlement terms may be a de minimus breach of the minutes of settlement that does not warrant the award of compensation. See Adorgloh v. Sentrex Communication, 2010 HRTO 2524.

8In this case, the applicant was given the payment required under the Minutes approximately 11 days after the payment was due and after he filed this Application, which I find to be a breach of the terms of the settlement. In my opinion, however, the delay was minor. The applicant presented no evidence indicating that it was foreseeable that he would incur any losses as a result of such a minor delay. Although the applicant felt anxious and slighted because of the delay, he provided no evidence of actual emotional or financial distress. In these circumstances, the delay experienced by the applicant amounts to a de minimus breach of the parties’ settlement that does not warrant an award of compensation.

9The Application is dismissed.