Patricia Anderson v. Lotek Wireless Inc., 2015 HRTO 831

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Patricia Anderson

Applicant

-and-

Lotek Wireless Inc.

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Dawn J. Kershaw

Date: June 22, 2015

Citation: 2015 HRTO 831

Indexed as: Anderson v. Lotek Wireless Inc.

APPEARANCES

Lotek Wireless Inc., Respondent

Kathy Boles, Representative

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the "Code").

2The respondent filed a Response, which included a request that the Application be dismissed because the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same matter.

3By Tribunal letter, dated March 17, 2015, the Tribunal advised the parties that a preliminary hearing would be scheduled to determine whether it would be an abuse of the Tribunal's process for the applicant to be permitted to proceed with her Application given that it appears the applicant signed a full and final release with respect to the same subject matter. The parties were to file any additional cases or submissions within 35 days of the date of that letter. The respondent filed witness statements. The applicant did not file anything further.

4By Tribunal letter, dated March 26, 2015, the preliminary hearing by teleconference was scheduled for June 22, 2015 to address the issue set out in the March 17, 2015 letter.

5The applicant did not participate in the teleconference call despite the Tribunal waiting 35 minutes after the scheduled start time for the applicant to call in. The respondent's counsel made submissions with respect to the summary hearing.

background and submissions

6The applicant was terminated from her employment in April, 2014, and signed a release at that time in which the applicant released the respondent from all claims, demands, actions, causes of action of every kind, known or unknown, specifically including claims arising under the Code.

7The Tribunal sent the applicant a notice of the preliminary hearing. The applicant had the opportunity to provide written submissions, as set out in the March 17, 2015 letter, but did not do so. She also did not participate in the preliminary hearing teleconference call.

8The respondent provided both oral and written submissions. The respondent submits that on the day the applicant was terminated, she signed a full and final release in exchange for just over three weeks' pay and benefits for an additional month. The respondent submits the applicant knew what she was signing in exchange for money. The respondent submits the applicant knew she could take the release home and consider it before signing, but did not do so.

9The respondent submits that although employees can seem shocked when they are terminated, the applicant did not appear to be any different than any other employee when she was terminated. The applicant signed the release, gathered her things and left.

10The respondent submits the applicant chose to sign the release on the spot, and the release states the applicant will not make any complaint or application under the Code.

decision and analysis

11The Tribunal dismisses the Application as abandoned. Despite knowing the time and date of the teleconference hearing, the applicant did not participate. She also provided no written submissions.

12The Application is dismissed.