Cord Olmstead v. Solucor, 2013 HRTO 1331

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Cord Olmstead

Applicant

-and-

Solucor

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Leslie Reaume

Date: July 31, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1331

Indexed as: Olmstead v. Solucor

APPEARANCES

Cord Olmstead, Applicant

Diane Smith, Representative

Solucor, Respondent

Stan Martin, Representative

1This is an Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment because of age. This Decision arises from a preliminary hearing held by teleconference on July 25, 2013.

2The issue raised by the respondent is that at the time of his termination, the applicant signed a full and final release which precludes him from pursuing an application before this Tribunal. A copy of the release was filed by the respondent.

3The release clearly indicates that the applicant is releasing the respondent from all claims in relation to his employment including claims under the Code. The release also contains an acknowledgement that the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent legal advice and the statement “I have read, understood and agree to accept the terms above, including my release of all claims against the company.”

4The applicant signed the agreement voluntarily. There was an approximately 4 month gap between the offer by the respondent and the signing of the termination documents which permitted the applicant to obtain advice from Ms. Smith, the paralegal who acts for him in the Application before this Tribunal. Ms. Smith indicated during the call that a representative of the Ministry of Labour (“MOL”) told her that her client could still pursue an Application before the Tribunal despite having complained about the circumstances of his employment to the MOL. I make no comment on the correctness of this advice since it appears to relate to a process before the MOL rather than the impact of a full and final release signed by the applicant. In addition, the applicant argued that this Application should continue because the circumstances underlying his termination, specifically his human rights allegations, were not discussed and have not been adequately addressed.

5In Perricone v. Fabco Plastics Wholesale, 2010 HRTO 1655, the Tribunal held that the fact that human rights issues were not specifically discussed at the time of termination did not detract from the plain wording of the agreement. This Tribunal has consistently held that it would constitute an abuse of process to permit an application to proceed where the applicant has signed a release which explicitly precludes a subsequent claim under the Code.

6There is no basis to support the exercise of my discretion to permit this Application to proceed in the face of the signed release.

7Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.