Norman Colefield v. Pickering College, 2010 HRTO 2468

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Norman Colefield

Applicant

-and-

Pickering College

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty

Date: December 13, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 2468

Indexed as: Colefield v. Pickering College

APPEARANCES

Norman Colefield, Applicant ) Self-represented

Pickering College, Respondent ) Donald Jarvis, Counsel )

OVERVIEW

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 on the grounds of disability in the area of employment. More specifically, the applicant alleges that his medical condition was a factor in the termination of his employment.

2The respondent has filed a Response in which it denies the allegations of discrimination and seeks the dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant signed a full and final release regarding the subject matter of the Application, waiving his right to bring any claim against the respondent.

3The Tribunal held a telephone conference hearing on December 13, 2010, to address the request for early dismissal. Both parties filed written submissions in respect of this issue.

4At the hearing, the applicant indicated that he had nothing further to submit and invited the Tribunal to determine the issue based on the written materials he had filed. Although counsel for the respondent had prepared oral submissions, in the circumstances, I found it unnecessary to hear from him.

5I advised the parties that I had reviewed their written submissions carefully and that, on the basis of these submissions, the Application was dismissed. The following are the written reasons for that decision.

ANALYSIS

6The applicant was employed by the respondent for approximately 20 years. He had some serious health issues in September 2006 and again in the Fall of 2008. His employment was terminated in March of 2009.

7The applicant and the respondent entered into a settlement agreement and release following the termination of the applicant’s employment. As a result of the arrangement, the applicant received ongoing salary and benefits for a period of time.

8The relevant portions of the release signed by the applicant on April 16, 2009, are as follows:

And it is further agreed that my rights pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act, 1997 have not been violated in any manner. In the event that I should hereafter make any claim or demand or commence or threaten to commence any action, claim or proceeding, or make any complaint against the Releasees or anyone connected with the Releasees for or by reason of any cause, matter or thing, this document may be raised as an estoppel and complete bar to any such claim, demand, action, proceeding or complaint. Further, I acknowledge and agree that, in light of this settlement, any complaint filed under the Human Rights Code or Employment Standards Act, 2000, or any other legislation, which in any way relates to my employment would be frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

9Section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended, provides that a tribunal may make such orders or give such directions in proceedings before it as it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes.

10The Tribunal has held that filing a human rights application after signing a full and final release in respect of the subject-matter of the application may constitute an abuse of the Tribunal’s process and, where that is the case, such applications should be dismissed. See, for example, Perricone v. Fabco Plastics Wholesale, 2010 HRTO 1655 and Sinnett v. Orlick Industries, 2009 HRTO 916.

11The applicant does not, in the materials he submitted, dispute that he signed the memorandum of agreement or that it contains release language specifically contemplating the Code and the subject-matter of the Application. He does not allege that the release was signed under duress and has provided no evidence of duress.

12I realize that, at the time he signed the settlement agreement and release, the applicant may have been under some pressure. I also appreciate that the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment were difficult and upsetting. However, the respondent entered into an agreement with the applicant and complied with its terms. In my view, the respondent must be entitled to rely upon a settlement agreement and release. To allow the Application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process in the circumstances.

13For all of these reasons, the Application is dismissed.