Abegunrin v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, 2016 HRTO 1471

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Emmanuel Abegunrin

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, Antonio Ruberto, Nicole Feldmann, Gary Soper, Helia Ralph, Ave Lethbridge, Anthony Haines and Steve Voulgaris

Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl

Date: November 16, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1471

Indexed as: Abegunrin v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission

APPEARANCES

Emmanuel Abegunrin, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto-Hydro-Electric Commission, Antonio Ruberto, Nicole Feldmann, Gary Soper, Helia Ralph, Ave Lethbridge, Anthony Haines and Steve Voulgaris, Respondents

Sonia Regenbogen, Counsel

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local One, Intervenor

Derrick McIntosh and David Philpott, Counsel

Introduction

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed on February 19, 2016 under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code"). The Application relates to Minutes of Settlement signed by the parties on December 15, 2015 relating to Tribunal File Nos. 2014-16904-I, 2014-17667-I, 2015-21998-I and 2015-21261-I. The hearing with respect to the Application took place by telephone conference on November 14, 2016.

background

2The applicant alleges that the Settlement Agreement was contravened when the organizational respondent breached paragraph 1(i) of the Settlement Agreement. He claims that Manulife denied his claim for benefits in its decision dated January 7, 2016 contrary to Toronto Hydro's undertaking to continue coverage by the company's Medical & Hospital Services & Dental Plan. Given the alleged contravention of the Settlement Agreement, it is the position of the applicant that, as remedy, the Settlement Agreement should be set aside.

3The organizational respondent indicates that as a result of an administrative error, there was a delay in the reinstatement of the Applicant's benefits with Manulife but that the benefits have now been reinstated retroactively and the dental claim submitted by the Applicant referenced in the Application has been processed and reimbursed in accordance with the applicable benefit plan. Therefore, the organizational respondent submits that there has not been a contravention of paragraph 1(i) of the Settlement in relation to the reinstatement of benefits. As a result the Application must be dismissed.

4In his Application the applicant alleged that the Settlement Agreement is not legally binding due to duress and other reasons. By Case Assessment Direction dated April 15, 2016, the Tribunal directed that the conference call was to address only the issue of whether or not the respondent has contravened the Settlement Agreement signed on December 17, 2015. Consequently, the issue as to the legally binding nature of the Settlement was not dealt with at he the hearing.

5At the conference call, the applicant raised an allegation that the organizational respondent failed to comply with paragraph 1 (ii) of the Settlement Agreement as well by failing to make its OMERS matching contributions for the periods identified. As this allegation was only raised for the first time at the hearing, I refused to consider it as part of the Application.

analysis and decision

6The Settlement provisions contained in the Code provide as follows:

45.9(1) If a settlement of an application made under section 34 or 35 is agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, the settlement is binding on the parties.

45.9(3) 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),

a. within six months after the contravention to which the application relates; or

b. if there was a series of contraventions, within six months after the last contravention in the series.

45.9(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.

7In this case, I find that there was a settlement as evidenced by the Settlement Agreement dated December 17, 2015, which, pursuant to paragraph 1(i) required the organizational respondent to continue coverage of the applicant under the "Company's Medical & Hospital Services & Dental Plan". I accept the applicant's evidence that there was a lapse in the coverage and that a dental benefit claim was not processed or reimbursed in accordance with the applicable benefit plan.

8I find that there was a contravention of settlement when the applicant's claim was not processed or reimbursed. I accept, however, the organizational respondent's uncontradicted evidence that the contravention was a result of an administrative error, that the applicant's benefits have now been reinstated retroactively and that the dental benefit claim submitted by the applicant has been processed and reimbursed in accordance with the benefit plan. I also accept the uncontradicted evidence of the organizational respondent that the contravention was rectified as soon as it became aware of the contravention, that is, when the Application was delivered to it. There is no indication that the applicant raised the matter with the organizational respondent prior to filing this Application; nor, is there any evidence that the applicant was unduly disadvantaged or prejudiced by the lapse of coverage.

9In my view, the contravention of settlement was relatively minor. It was remedied in short order. There is a general legal principle that "the law does not deal with trifles" (de minimus non currant lex"): see for example Ontario v. Canadian Pacific, 1995 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R., 1031 at para. 65. In my opinion, the contravention amounted to a de minimus breach of the Settlement Agreement. The Tribunal has refused to order a remedy in situations where the breach was de minimus. See for example Adorgloh v. Sentrex Communications, 2010 HRTO 2524 and Budan-Hughes v. Clemmer Steelcraft Technologies, 2009 HRTO 1618.

10Subsection 45.9(8) is clear: "the Tribunal may make an order it considers appropriate to remedy the contravention". An award for a contravention of settlement is a discretionary matter for the Tribunal.

11I do not consider it appropriate to order a remedy for contravention of settlement in this case. As stated earlier, I am of the view that the breach of settlement was de minimus. On the whole the organizational respondent met its commitment with respect to maintaining benefit coverage for the applicant and in these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to order a remedy.

order

12The Application for Contravention of Settlement is allowed but there is no order as to remedy.