Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Carole Bard Applicant
-and-
Heenan Blaikie LLP and Jennifer O’Leary Respondents
Decision
Adjudicator: Michelle Flaherty Date: September 16, 2011 Citation: 2011 HRTO 1706 Indexed as: Bard v. Heenan Blaikie LLP
Appearances
Carole Bard, Applicant ) Self-Represented Heenan Blaikie LLP and Jennifer O’Leary, Respondents ) Morrie Zucker, Counsel
Decision
1The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), in which she alleges discrimination on the basis of disability and age in the context of employment. In essence, the applicant takes issue with the termination of her employment.
2The respondents ask for early dismissal of this Application because the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the subject matter of the Application. The respondents argue that it would be an abuse of process to allow the Application to proceed.
3The applicant has filed a Response to the Request for dismissal of the Application. She acknowledges signing a release, but says that she had no choice but to do so given her financial situation. She argues that she signed the release under stress and duress and that the Tribunal should proceed with the matter notwithstanding the release.
4Following an Interim Decision, 2010 HRTO 1303, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal and the respondents and indicated that she wished to make oral submissions in regards to the respondents’ request for early dismissal.
5The Tribunal scheduled a hearing by way of conference call, which took place on October 5, 2010. Although both parties received notice of the hearing, neither party joined the telephone conference call or participated in the hearing. The Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned: 2010 HRTO 2033.
6On November 5, 2010, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration indicating that she did not receive notice of the telephone conference hearing. The Tribunal issued a Reconsideration Decision, 2010 HRTO 2362, in which it held that it was appropriate to reconsider its Decision and give the applicant an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the early dismissal.
7The Tribunal held a conference call hearing on September 9, 2011, to consider the preliminary issue of whether it would constitute an abuse of process to allow the Application to proceed even though the applicant signed a full and final release. Both parties attended the conference call hearing and provided oral submissions.
Facts
8The applicant was employed as a legal assistant by the respondent, Heenan Blaikie LLP, from October 3, 2005, to February 5, 2009.
9On February 5, 2009, the applicant’s employment was terminated. She was provided with a letter confirming the termination of her employment and offering her a severance package equal to ten weeks’ salary. The termination letter also states that the applicant’s record of employment will be provided to her within seven days of receipt of a signed letter and release.
10The parties entered into negotiations regarding the terms of the termination of the applicant’s employment