Sherry Lappin v. CanPages Inc., 2009 HRTO 2203

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Sherry Lappin

Applicant

-and-

CanPages Inc.

Respondent

interim DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: December 17, 2009 Citation: 2009 HRTO 2203 Indexed as: Lappin v. CanPages Inc.

1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”), raises allegations that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by reprising against her or making threats of reprisal.

2The applicant worked for PhoneGuide, which she says was taken over by the respondent, CanPages Inc. All employees of PhoneGuide who wished to continue their employment were invited to attend an interview with the respondent. The applicant was scheduled to be interviewed but states the respondent cancelled the interview because the applicant had initiated human rights proceedings against the respondent, CanPages Inc., in 2006, in the context of previous employment with CanPages Inc.

3The respondent has requested an early dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same matter. It has provided a copy of the minutes of settlement and the release signed by the applicant in August of 2007.

4The minutes of settlement contain the following provision:

The complainant agrees that this settlement is in full, final and complete settlement of all claims existing up to the date hereof, arising out of or in any way relating to [the applicant’s] employment into the matters giving rise to this complaint referred to above against the respondents an [sic] agrees to sign the attached release.

5The applicant also executed a release in August 2007 in which she releases, among others, the respondent, from:

all present or future complaints or causes for complaint under the Human Rights Code.... of every kind existing up to the date hereof, to the extent that such are arising out of the fact situation and matters that gave rise to this complaint.

6The dismissal of an Application is appropriate where the applicant has signed a full and final release with respect to the subject matter of the Application.

7In this case, the subject matter of the Application is different from that which is addressed in the settlement agreement and release. The language in these agreements relates to the termination of the applicant’s employment as well as the events which occurred during her earlier employment with CanPages Inc. and led to its termination. While the settlement agreements contemplate future alleged breaches of the Code, the language is clear that the future claims covered by the release are those “arising out of the fact situation and matters that gave rise” to the earlier complaint.

8The applicant’s allegations that the respondent did not interview her because she had been involved in human rights proceedings does not arise out of the same fact situation as the earlier complaint. They relate instead to a separate alleged incident of discrimination, which I find is not covered by the release and settlement agreement.

9For this reason, the request for early dismissal is denied.

10By January 6, 2010, the respondent is required to file with the Tribunal and provide to the applicant a full Response to the Application.