HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Michael Lachance
Applicant
-and-
Honda of Canada, Mfg., a division of Honda Canada Inc.
Respondent
interiM DECISION
Adjudicator: Alison Renton
Indexed as: Lachance v. Honda Canada
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.19 as amended (the “Code”), on September 4, 2009 alleging discrimination on the ground of disability in employment. The respondent filed a Response to the Application requesting early dismissal on the ground that the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same matter.
2By letter dated November 3, 2009, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant enclosing the Response and indicating that the applicant could respond to the request for early dismissal within 14 days after November 3, 2009. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter.
3By Interim Decision dated December 24, 2009, 2009 HRTO 2260 (“the December Interim Decision”), the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the respondent’s request for early dismissal within 21 days of the Interim Decision and in such submissions explain, among other things, why, in his view, he is entitled to pursue the Application given the signed release. The applicant did not file any submissions or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal following the December Interim Decision.
4A subsequent Interim Decision dated January 28, 2010, 2010 HRTO 196) (“the January Interim Decision”), was issued. Again the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the respondent’s request for early dismissal. The applicant was given 10 days from the date of the January Interim Decision to advise the Tribunal, in writing, of his intentions. If he intended to continue with his Application, he was directed to file the submissions required by the Tribunal’s December Interim Decision, together with an explanation of why he did not file submissions in accordance with the December Interim Decision.
5The applicant filed a Reply dated February 3, 2010 with the Tribunal stating that it was his intention to proceed with his Application notwithstanding his signing of the release. The applicant states in the Reply that he understands that he accepted a sum of money as a settlement with the respondent, but “believes” the release is not binding. He submits that he was discriminated against on the basis of mental disability. He alleges the respondent did “nothing to accommodate [him]”, “took full advantage of [his] vulnerability”, “avoided dealing with [his] disability by having [him] sign [his] Human Rights away” and “completely averted their responsibility and obligations”.
6While the applicant did not provide an explanation in his Reply about why he did not respond to the Tribunal’s November 2009 correspondence and the December Interim Decision, he has provided a response to the respondent’s request for early dismissal based upon his signing of a release and in the circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Reply. However, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to schedule a one hour telephone conference call to hear submissions on the issue of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the Application as a result of the applicant having signed a release.
7The following directions shall apply to the telephone conference call:
(a)the applicant should be prepared to proceed first, by responding to the respondent’s written argument with regards to the signed release.
(b)If either party wishes to rely on any written materials (including written submissions, documents or case law) or facts not contained in the Application, Response or Reply, they must deliver such additional material to the other party and file it with the Registrar no later than two weeks before the date of the conference call.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 11th day of March, 2010.
“Signed By”
Alison Renton
Vice-chair