Corey Hall v. 1806141 Ontario Inc., 2012 HRTO 378

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Corey Hall Applicant

• and-

1806141 Ontario Inc. Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Douglas Sanderson Date: February 23, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 378 Indexed as: Hall v. 1806141 Ontario Inc.

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

2The applicant alleges that he was subject to harassment at work and the respondent terminated his employment when he required leave from work following a workplace injury. The respondent has requested a Summary Hearing, pursuant to Rule 19A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and has filed a Response wherein it requested dismissal of the Application because the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same matter.

3The Request for Summary Hearing is denied. Pursuant to Rule 19A.5, the Tribunal need not give reasons for a decision not to hold Summary Hearing following a party’s request.

4The document containing the purported release was a Memorandum of Understanding the parties executed on February 11, 2011. The respondent submits that the following paragraph amounts to a release of any liability against any future legal claims, liabilities and lawsuits:

Both parties have a long-term relationship, offer best wishes one to the other, and hold harmless each other for the cause of the voluntary request for separation.

5In response to the Request to Dismiss, the applicant states that he was injured at work and was suffering work related stress due to harassment. The applicant alleges that he requested his vacation pay and a Record of Employment (“ROE”) in order to claim sick benefits. He states that the respondent required him to sign the Memorandum of Understanding in exchange for the document. The applicant states that he was able to “skim” the document briefly, but did not understand that the document entailed the termination of the employment relationship, which he did not intend. The applicant states that he relied on the representation of Mr. Ingleton, who presented the Memorandum to him, that the document simply meant that “there were no hard feelings” between the parties. The applicant states that he signed the document under duress because he needed his ROE to claim sick benefits. The applicant further submits that the Memorandum is in any event not a release, noting that the document did not state that the applicant released the respondent from claims under the Code or from anything else for that matter. The applicant also notes that he was entitled to his ROE and vacation pay and in providing these to the applicant the respondent was merely meeting its statutory obligations. Accordingly, the respondent gave no consideration for the Memorandum and it is not enforceable.

Decision

6In my view, the Memorandum of Understanding cannot reasonably be interpreted as constituting a full and final release of the applicant’s claims against the respondent under the Code. The language used in the paragraph in question, and the document as a whole, is quite vague. Aside from the fact that the word "release" is not used in the document, there is nothing in the document which can be interpreted as evidence of the applicant giving up his claims under the Code. The Tribunal will process the Application.

7I am not seized.