Chaoming Liao v. University Health Network (Toronto General Hospital), 2016 HRTO 148

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Chaoming Liao

Applicant

-and-

University Health Network (Toronto General Hospital)

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: February 2, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 148

Indexed as: Liao v. University Health Network (Toronto General Hospital)

APPEARANCES

Chaoming Liao, Applicant

Self-represented

University Health Network (Toronto General Hospital), Respondent

Jacqueline Silvera, Representative

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed on August 17, 2014, alleging a breach of Minutes of Settlement (the Minutes) entered into by the parties on June 18, 2013, contrary to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant’s union was also a party to the Minutes of Settlement.

2The applicant alleges that the amount of severance and termination pay agreed to as a term of the settlement is not the correct amount. He alleges that the parties agreed that there would be a continuation of full health and dental benefits and that this term was not fulfilled.

3The applicant also stated that he had assumed that by signing the Minutes he would enjoy quiet living but the respondent had interfered with his quiet living when it had objected to a decision of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board shortly after signing the Minutes.

4An oral hearing took place on January 6, 2016 to hear the parties’ submissions. A Mandarin interpreter was available to assist the parties.

5There is no dispute that in signing the Minutes, the respondent agreed to pay the applicant an amount of money less statutory deductions to represent severance and termination pay. There is also no dispute that the respondent has paid the amount that was set out in the Minutes.

6The applicant submits, however, that he should have been paid more. He submits that given his years of working for the respondent and in accordance with the contract between the union and the respondent, he should have received a greater amount of severance pay. He says that he learned this after he signed the Minutes when he spoke to his friends who work for the respondent. He also submits that he did not receive enough vacation pay as he has a dispute with the respondent about whether days he attended a medical appointment should be counted as vacation days.

7The parties agree that in accordance with the Minutes, the applicant’s health and dental benefits were to continue for 18 months from the date of signing the Minutes. However, there was an administrative hurdle that delayed the start of this continuation until August 1, 2013. The applicant agreed that the health and dental benefits were covered from August 1, 2013 to February 1, 2015 which is 18 months.

8The applicant submitted that the 18 months was not an issue but that what he disagreed with was that during negotiations and before signing the Minutes, the parties had agreed that there would be a continuation of health and dental benefits. The applicant submitted a memorandum that was signed by the respondent’s representative and the applicant on June 13, 2013. This memorandum states that the negotiations were to continue and that the applicant “will be eligible for a continuation of the basic benefit package.” The applicant submits that he understood that to mean a continuation of benefits until he turned age 65. He states that the respondent’s representative had initially agreed to continuation until age 65 but had advised that she would need to check with her supervisors. When the Minutes were signed on June 18, 2013, the respondent only offered to continue the benefits for 18 months. The applicant does not dispute that when he signed the Minutes he understood that the benefits would continue for 18 months.

Analysis

9The difficulty with the applicant’s submissions with respect to the severance and termination pay, and the continuation of benefits is that this Tribunal’s jurisdiction under s. 45.9 of the Code is to enforce the terms of settlement as agreed upon by the parties. Evidence about what the parties thought or what their intentions were is only relevant if the language of the Minutes is ambiguous. In Moncur v. Beach Grove Golf and Country Club, 2014 HRTO 764, the Tribunal said, at paragraph 19:

The contractual intent of the parties is to be determined by reference to the words they used in drafting the document, and 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 parol evidence rule. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Novopharm Ltd., 1998 SCC 791 at paras. 54, 55 and 58.

10The language of the Minutes that address the severance and termination pay, and the continuation of benefits is clear. Although the applicant may be having second thoughts about what he signed, there is no question that he did sign the Minutes with the union representative present. As stated, there is no dispute that the respondent paid the amount of severance and termination as stated in the Minutes.

11Although it is unfortunate that his health and dental benefits were not covered for a period of 6 weeks after signing the Minutes, when the coverage commenced it continued for a period of 18 months.

12There are no terms in the Minutes that address vacation pay or state that the respondent will not object to any decisions made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

13I find that there is no evidence to support a finding that the respondent breached any terms of the June 18, 2013 Minutes of Settlement.

ORDER

14For all of the above reasons, the Application is dismissed.