Uduwerella v. CB Richard Ellis Global Corporate Services, 2009 HRTO 1784

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Dinali Uduwerella

Applicant

-and-

CB Richard Ellis Global Corporate Services, Eldy Marinacci, Raymond Tran, Shahid Akhtar, Waqas Sheikh, and Sharjeel Uqaili

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: October 27, 2009

Citation: 2009 HRTO 1784

Indexed as: Uduwerella v. CB Richard Ellis Global Corporate Services

1This is an Application filed on April 9, 2009, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2The Application alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, place of origin, sex and age, and reprisal under the Code. The applicant alleges that she was harassed by co-workers and a supervisor during 2008, and until her termination from employment on February 12, 2009.

3The corporate respondent and each of the individual respondents have filed Responses. The corporate respondent has requested early dismissal of the Application, relying on the terms of a release signed by the Applicant on February 23, 2009, a copy of which is enclosed with its Response.

4The Response of the corporate respondent also describes the circumstances of the signing of the Release. Among other things, it states that the applicant was advised on February 12, 2009, that her employment was being terminated without cause. The applicant was provided with a termination letter detailing the terms of her severance package, and asked to sign the Release. The corporate respondent states that two days later, the applicant raised concerns about alleged harassment in the workplace during her employment, in an email to its Vice-President of Human Resources. It states that two days following that, the applicant again emailed the Vice-President requesting an increase in her severance package. The corporate respondent agreed to an increase in the severance offered and following this the applicant accepted the offer and signed the Release.

5The applicant stated in her Application that she signed a Release “because I was not aware of other options open to me.” She has also made submissions in her Reply on the corporate respondent’s request to dismiss.

6The Tribunal has held that the signing of a Release can bar an applicant from proceeding with an Application under the Code: see, for example, Douse v. Hallmark Canada, 2009 HRTO 1254. It is appropriate for the Tribunal to determine as a preliminary matter whether to dismiss the Application on the basis of the Release signed by the applicant.

7The Tribunal will provide the parties with an opportunity to make submissions on the effect of the Release on the applicant’s rights to pursue this Application. The respondents may provide submissions in writing, which shall include any caselaw, documents or facts they rely on, with respect to the issue of whether the Release bars this Application. These submissions must be provided to the Tribunal and to the other parties by November 10, 2009.

8The applicant may respond to these submissions by November 24, 2009. The applicant’s submissions must include any caselaw, documents or facts she relies on with respect to this issue. She must also state whether she disagrees with any of the facts relied on by the respondents as to the circumstances of the signing of the Release and, if she disagrees, she must state her version of the facts. The respondents may reply to her submissions by December 1, 2009.

9If any party wishes to have an opportunity to provide oral submissions on this issue, they must indicate this in their written submissions. Following receipt of the submissions the Tribunal may decide the issue or make further directions as to the processing of this Application.

10I am not seized of this matter.