HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Christine Logan
Applicant
-and-
Keir Surgical Ltd. and Patrick Haney
Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Keith Brennenstuhl
Date: September 9th, 2016
Citation: 2016 HRTO 1188
Indexed as: Logan v. Keir Surgical Ltd. and Patrick Haney
APPEARANCES
Christine Logan, Applicant
Self-represented
Keir Surgical Ltd. and Patrick Haney, Respondents
Derek Frenette, Counsel
1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The individual respondent is the president of the corporate respondent. The Application alleges that the applicant was terminated by the respondents on November 18, 2015 for discriminatory reasons.
2On the following date, the applicant signed a letter on company letterhead which confirmed the parties’ agreement to terminate the applicant’s employment with the corporate respondent and to send out the severance arrangements associated with the termination of that employment. The letter does not contain language typically associated with a full and final release. Rather it reads: “in signing below, you agree to the dates and terms above and release Keir surgical from any further obligations related to your employment”.
3The respondents take the position that the Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process, on the basis of the termination letter signed by the applicant.
4Although the term “release” is used in the termination letter, it is unclear what the respective parties intended to release or what is meant by the term “further obligations”. I am unable to conclude on the basis of the language of the termination letter that the parties to the agreement intended to resolve all outstanding employment issues, including any claims before this Tribunal under the Code.
5The individual respondent drafted the termination letter. As such, the respondent had the opportunity to eliminate any uncertainty associated with the language he chose to use in the letter. This would include language to the effect that by accepting the offer, the applicant was giving up her right to pursue any claim related to her employment including by way of an application before this Tribunal under the Code. As the respondent failed to incorporate this specific language into the termination letter, I am unable to conclude that it was all the parties’ intention to resolve all outstanding employment matters, including potential claims under the Code.
6Accordingly, in all the circumstances, I deny the respondents’ request for the Application to be dismissed as an abuse of process on the basis of the termination agreement. As a result, the Application will proceed further in the Tribunal’s process.
7I note from the Application and Response that all parties have agreed to mediation. Accordingly, the next step in the process will be for the Tribunal to schedule mediation for the parties.
order
8For the foregoing reasons, I make the following order:
a. The respondents’ request for the Application to be dismissed as an abuse of process is denied; and
b. The Tribunal will proceed to schedule mediation in this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of September, 2016.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Keith Brennenstuhl
Vice-chair