Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1985] OLRB Rep. February 221
2623-84-U Fatehally Khamisa, Complainant, v. Captali Investments Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members S. O'Flynn and W. H. Wightman.
APPEARANCES: Fatehally Khamisa on his own behalf; Stephen Bale for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 25, 1985
1This is a complaint under section 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a breach of a settlement.
2On December 6, 1984, the complainant and the respondent entered into a written settlement of a complaint (Board File 0134-84-U) which included inter alia, a requirement that the respondent would pay to the complainant the sum of seventeen hundred and fifty dollars (S 1,750.00) by December 20, 1984. For personal and family reasons the complainant was anxious that the funds be paid by that date. In fact, a certified cheque was not available to the complainant until December 28, 1984. There is no dispute that the cheque was cashed and that the complainant therefore received the full amount contemplated by the settlement —albeit about a week late.
3Counsel for the employer explained that the cheque required a countersignature of a company officer in Vancouver. Its return, by courier, was delayed somewhat by the Christmas mail and because he was out of the office for a few days. However, from conversations with the complainant's solicitor, his understanding (and he might have been wrong) was that so long as the cheque was available by the following Thursday, December 27th. there would be no difficulties. Following the launching of this proceeding, the solicitors for the respondent offered to pay interest in respect of the delay but the complainant refused to accept it. He demanded as a matter of principle to come before the Board and obtain a Board order. The sum in question would be four or five dollars. The complainant advised the Board that, as a matter of principle, he wanted a Board decision and order even if the respondent only owed one penny.
4Having heard the submissions, the Board made the following oral ruling:
We have considered the submissions of the complainant and are not unsympathetic to his concern about payment. Indeed, it is important that settlements be complied with in accordance with their terms. Non-compliance to any degree is an irritant and potentially corrosive to the orderly process of labour relations. On the other hand, it is also necessary to have some sense of proportion in these matters. The fact is that, although there was some delay, it was not excessive nor unexplained. However, as the complainant put it, he is not concerned with the trifling amount involved in this case; if it is only one penny owing he wants a Board order to that effect. Indeed, it appears that the complainant has already been offered and refused the most that he could possibly obtain in this proceeding before the Board.
5While the complainant is entitled to invoke the legal processes available to him and demand a hearing "as a matter of principle", and even if the amount in issue is trivial, and he may choose to spend his own funds to do so, under section 89 of the Act the Board has a discretion with respect to remedy. We are satisfied in all the circumstances of this case that no order is warranted. The complaint is therefore dismissed.