Israel v. Fazl, 2016 HRTO 1670

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Arianna Israel

Applicant

-and-

Mahmood Fazl

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott

Date: December 22, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 1670

Indexed as: Israel v. Fazl

APPEARANCES

Arianna Israel, Applicant

Self-represented

Introduction

1The applicant and the respondent entered into Minutes of Settlement on January 4, 2016. Pursuant to the Minutes of Settlement, the respondent was to provide monetary compensation and a signed letter of reference on letterhead to the applicant by February 1, 2016. The unsigned letter of reference was attached to the Minutes of Settlement as an appendix.

2The respondent provided the monetary compensation to the applicant on January 11 or 12, 2016. The respondent did not provide the signed letter of reference on letterhead by February 1, 2016.

3On February 5, 2016, the applicant filed this Application pursuant to section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that the respondent breached the Minutes of Settlement by not providing the signed letter of reference on letterhead by February 1, 2016. The applicant is seeking monetary compensation for this breach.

4The respondent responded to the Application by letter dated February 8, 2016 where he stated:

I did sign a reference letter that was prepared by Mrs. Israel on January 4^th, 2016 already, and Mrs. Israel already has that letter.

5On March 30, 2016, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing the respondent to provide submissions to the applicant and the Tribunal on whether the document that he believes he signed was on letterhead, if so, whether he had a copy of the signed letter.

6On April 11, 2016, the respondent provided the Tribunal with the signed letter of reference on letterhead. The letter of reference was provided to the applicant by the Tribunal.

7An in-person hearing on the Application was held on October 28, 2016. The applicant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend.

Analysis and Decision

8The Tribunal’s remedial authority regarding a contravention of settlement is set out in section 45.9(8), 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.

9In Glover v. 571566 Ontario Inc., 2011 HRTO 1563, (“Glover”), 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 provides the appropriate principles to apply when determining a remedy under section 45.9(8). See also Keating v. 2229884 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1677.

10As 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 reasonably been contemplated by the parties (see paragraphs 35 and 36). 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 itself 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 Communications, 2010 HRTO 2524.

11In this case, the respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Minutes of Settlement when he did not provide a signed letter of reference on letterhead to the applicant by February 1, 2016. The issue is whether this breach gives rise to an award of monetary compensation.

12At the hearing, applicant stated that she was unable to get a job without the signed letter of reference on letterhead. The applicant stated that she was owed compensation because of the respondent’s roadblocks and his complete disregard of his obligations. The applicant conceded that the respondent was under the impression that when he signed the Minutes of Settlement on January 4, 2016, he had signed the letter of reference attached to the Minutes.

13In my view, this is not an appropriate case to award compensation to the applicant for the following reasons. The applicant stated that the respondent’s failure to provide the letter of reference prevented her from getting a job. However, there is no evidence that the applicant’s inability to provide a signed letter of reference to potential employees prevented her from getting employment. Ultimately, the applicant returned to her previous place of employment where she did not need the letter of reference.

14The applicant conceded that the respondent was confused about his obligations in relation to the letter of reference. He believed that when he signed the Minutes of Settlement, he signed the letter of reference. This is consistent with the respondent’s response to the Application where he stated the signed letter of reference had been provided to the applicant. While the applicant believes additional compensation should be awarded because of the respondent’s roadblocks and disregard of the timeline, the breach of the Minutes of Settlement by the respondent was inadvertent. He complied with the timeline with respect to the payment of monetary compensation and he believed that he had signed the reference letter when he signed the Minutes of Settlement on January 4, 2016. The respondent ultimately provided the signed letter of reference to the Tribunal who in turn, provided it to the applicant. It was not reasonably foreseeable by the parties that additional monetary compensation would be awarded for an inadvertent breach of the Minutes of Settlement.

order

15In the circumstances of this case, no remedial order is required to remedy this breach.