Bradford v. Dayton Superior Limited, 2014 HRTO 1133

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Derrick Bradford

Applicant

-and-

Dayton Superior Limited

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Mary Truemner

Date: July 29, 2014

Citation: 2014 HRTO 1133

Indexed as: Bradford v. Dayton Superior Limited

APPEARANCES

Derrick Bradford, Applicant

Self-represented

Dayton Superior Limited, Respondent

Ernest Coetzee, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1This Application was filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). In the Application, the applicant alleges that the respondent, his former employer, discriminated against him because of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and ethnic origin both with respect to the 10-year period during which he indicated he was employed, and with respect to the termination of his employment on November 8, 2013. The respondent denies the applicant’s allegations.

REQUEST FOR EARLY DISMISSAL

2The respondent requested the early dismissal of the Application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release with respect to the subject-matter of the Application. The respondent filed a letter from the respondent to the applicant dated November 8, 2013 that is countersigned by the Applicant on November 14, 2013, and to which was attached a copy of a full and final release signed by the applicant on November 14, 2013 (“the release”). The relevant portions of the release state:

I, Derrick Anthony Bradford [the “Releasor”], …in consideration of the payments promised by [the respondent]… hereby release and forever discharge the Releasee [the respondent] of and from all manner of actions, causes of actions, suits, debts, dues, accounts, bonds, covenants, contracts, claims and demands whatsoever which against the said Releasee the Releasor ever had, now has or can, shall or may hereafter have for or by reason of any cause, matter or thing whatsoever existing up to the present time, and more particularly, but without limitation, all claims and demands arising in or out of or in any way connected with the employment of the Releasor by the Releasee, the compensation, benefits and rights enjoyed by the Releasor in connection with such employment, the termination of such employment or the obligations, statutory, contractual or otherwise, of the Releasee to the Releasor in respect thereof, including, without limitation, … any and all claims under the Ontario Human Rights Code…

3The November 8, 2013 letter provided the applicant until November 15, 2013 to sign the release in order to receive an offered salary continuance for six months, benefit continuance until January 3, 2014, and vacation pay. The letter stated that if the applicant did not sign and return the release by that date, then he would only receive amounts and benefits to which he was entitled pursuant to the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000.

4A teleconference hearing was convened on July 24, 2014, to give the parties an opportunity to make submissions on the respondent’s request.

release

5The applicant explained during the teleconference hearing that he wishes that he had not signed the release. He explained that when the respondent terminated his employment and gave him the letter and release on November 8, 2013, he refused to sign until receiving legal advice. He later took the letter and release to a lawyer who provided him, on November 14, 2013, with legal advice to sign the release. The applicant signed the release on that day, and gave it to the respondent. The applicant subsequently received and accepted the salary continuance, benefit continuance and vacation pay as promised by the respondent in exchange for the applicant signing the release.

6The applicant submits that his Application should not be dismissed as a result of the release. He believes that he received bad legal advice and should not have signed the release. For its part, the respondent submits that the Application is an abuse of process given the release which was signed with full knowledge and legal advice.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

7Section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended (“SPPA”), 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. In numerous cases, the 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.

8I find that the applicant exercised an informed and reasoned choice, having received legal advice from a lawyer to sign the release. The release was signed after the date of termination and by virtue of the date that it was signed, it included all complaints that may have arisen during the applicant’s employment or with respect to the termination. I have no difficulty in finding that the release clearly encompasses claims brought under the Code, (particularly as it was specifically mentioned in the release language), and the allegations made in the Application. The release is a binding contract and it prevents the parties from litigating matters that have been settled unless there are compelling reasons to set it aside. The applicant has not presented a sufficient basis for me to find that he should not be bound by the release. In the circumstances of this case and the executed release, to proceed with the Application would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process.

order

9The Application is dismissed.