Unis v. Cardinal Place, 2016 HRTO 738

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Marie Unis

Applicant

-and-

Cardinal Place

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir

Date: May 30, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 738

Indexed as: Unis v. Cardinal Place

APPEARANCES

Marie Unis, Applicant

Self-represented

Cardinal Place, Respondent

Michael Cardinal, Representative

Introduction

1This is an Application filed pursuant to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”).

2All parties attended the hearing held by teleconference on May 25, 2016.

3The only allegation in the Application is that the respondent failed to deliver its revised human rights policy to the applicant within 30 days of the date the Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) were executed, August 28, 2015. The applicant asserted that she did not receive the revised policy and that this failure constituted a breach of settlement for which she claimed significant monetary compensation.

4The respondent asserted that it sent the materials required by the MOS to the applicant before the 30-day deadline contemplated in the MOS. This material was sent by regular mail and was returned. The respondent also asserted that it was more important to note that the revised policy was in place and its staff was being trained on it beginning immediately after the mediation.

5The applicant acknowledged receiving a package in the mail from the respondent in late September 2015 but it included only a revised employment letter and did not contain the revised human rights policy. The applicant does not appear to have made any attempt to clarify with the respondent when she might receive the other material required by the MOS. The respondent conceded that it was possible that an error was made in that, while it intended to send the required material, it did not in fact do so.

DECISION

6The Application is allowed in part given the apparent contravention, but the contravention has been remedied in fact and no remedy is otherwise appropriate in the circumstances.

7The Code provides the following statutory framework for this Application:

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.

(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.

(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.

8In my view, it is possible that the respondent failed, inadvertently, to deliver the required document to the applicant. I find on this basis that there has been a breach of the MOS.

9At the hearing I asked the applicant what damage she had suffered as a consequence of the breach of settlement. Her responses referred to her hurt feelings related to the alleged breach of the Code outlined in the original Application which was settled.

10In my view there is no indication of any damage suffered by the applicant flowing from the breach of the MOS. The applicant does have the document now, having received it from the respondent in the context of this proceeding. She received it later than she should have; however, I note that there is no indication that the applicant attempted to contact the respondent to find out why she had received some material contemplated by the MOS but not the revised human rights policy. Rather, the applicant filed this Application. To the extent that the applicant received the revised human rights policy later than she should have, this appears to be in part a consequence of her filing this Application rather than contacting the respondent.

11The Tribunal has recognized that a mediated settlement of a human rights claim is a contract made in a particular context, but at the end of the day it is a contract and the damages that flow from a breach of settlement are those which would flow from a breach of contract. See for example Keating v. 2229884 Ontario Inc., 2015 HRTO 1677.

12This is reflected in the language of the Code. Section of 45.9(8) is different than the general remedial language for an alleged breach of the Code, contained in s. 45.2(1), in that 45.9(8) does not include any reference to damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. This absence is meaningful and in my view confirms that damages for a breach of settlement are largely limited to those which might be awarded for a breach of contract; although minutes of settlement are a contract of a particular kind and in entered into in a particular context.

13In the circumstances no remedial order is required to remedy this breach. The applicant received the revised human rights policy in response to her Application and has not established any damages flowing from the breach of the MOS.