Karen Lewellen v. Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, 2016 HRTO 891

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Karen Lewellen

Applicant

-and-

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Laurie Letheren

Date: July 6, 2016

Citation: 2016 HRTO 891

Indexed as: Lewellen v. Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited

APPEARANCES

Karen Lewellen, Applicant

Self-represented

Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, Respondent

Sven Poysa, Counsel

1This is a Contravention of Settlement Application filed on October 1, 2015, alleging a breach of Minutes of Settlement (the “Minutes”) entered into by the parties on July 10, 2014, contrary to s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2One of the terms of the Minutes is that the respondent is to instruct a provider of accessible format materials to provide the applicant with bills that are in plain text format. The bills are to be delivered on a compact disc (“CD”) containing all the information that is generally provided in the bills that are sent to other members of the public. The respondent is to provide all the information necessary to create the bill in plain text format.

3The applicant alleges that around the end of December 2014, she received one of the respondent’s bills on a CD but the jewel case for the CD did not have a braille label. She alleges that without this braille label, she was unable to identify who the CD was from and even whether it was a bill or some other document. She indicated that for her, the braille label on the CD acts as the sender’s address on a bill’s envelope.

4The applicant stated she received a CD for the billing ending in April 2015 which also did not have a braille label.

5The applicant acknowledged that the CDs she received that were bills from the respondent contained all the billing information she required. The plain text versions of these bills indicated that they were from the respondent; they had her address and her account number; they indicated that amount of usage; and they showed the balance owing to the respondent.

6The applicant stated that once she managed to get to the point where she could get the text version loaded onto her own computer, the text and information was fine. She stated that she assumed the information contained on the CDs looked like the information that the general public would receive. It allowed her to act upon it.

7She acknowledged and the respondent confirmed that the applicant had paid the December 2014 and the April 2015 bills on time.

8The applicant stated that the frustration and barrier to accessing the information is created by the lack of braille label and the errors that often occur when she is attempting to load the contents of the CDs onto her home computer.

9It is appears that the provider of accessible materials may have stopped using the braille labels on the CDs sent to the applicant after a misunderstanding arose when the applicant had indicated in an email to the respondent that was forwarded to the provider of accessible format materials, “I do not braille over much”.

10The applicant was upset by the fact that this wording had been interpreted to mean that she should no longer receive braille labels. She submits that the respondent should have asked her to clarify what was meant by this wording.

11The respondent submits that it has not breached any terms of the Minutes. The respondent submits that it has fulfilled its obligations to instruct a provider of accessible format materials to provide a plain text bill to the applicant on a CD; and it has provided all the information necessary for the creation of a bill that contains all the information that is generally available to other members of the public.

12The respondent submits that the applicant has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the respondent has breached any terms of the Minutes. Although, it regrets that the applicant had these experiences, it is not responsible for the labels or the difficulties and errors the applicant encounters when she is loading the contents of the CD onto her computer.

Analysis and Decision

13Subsections 45.9(1) and (3) of the Code provide:

(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).

14It is clear from Minutes and the evidence provided by the parties, that the respondent has fulfilled its obligations under the terms of the Minutes. The respondent has and continues to instruct a provider of accessible format materials to provide the applicant with bills that are in plain text format. The bills are delivered to the applicant on a CD containing all the information that is generally provided in the bills that are sent to other members of the public. The respondent has and continues to provide all the information necessary to create the bill in plain text format.

15There has been no contravention of the July 10, 2014 Minutes by the respondent. Accordingly, this Application is dismissed.

ORDER

16The Application is dismissed.