Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
Wieslaw Pietraszek Applicant
-and-
D’Alessandro Investments Limited o/a Westend Hyundai Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: March 1, 2016 Citation: 2016 HRTO 275 Indexed as: Pietraszek v. D’Alessandro Investments Limited
Appearances
Wieslaw Pietraszek, Applicant Self-represented
D’Alessandro Investments Limited o/a Westend Hyundai, Respondent Lorenzo D’Alessandro, Representative
1The respondent seeks dismissal of the Application on the basis that the parties executed Minutes of Settlement. On September 2, 2015, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction directing that a preliminary hearing would be held to determine whether the Application should be dismissed because it is an abuse of process. Both parties participated at the preliminary hearing.
Background
2The applicant was employed with by the respondent for approximately three years when his employment was terminated on September 9, 2014. The applicant initiated an action in Small Claims Court.
3On April 15, 2015, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement in which “the parties have agreed to settle this action.” The respondent agreed to pay the applicant an amount, in general damages, “as full satisfaction of all claims, inclusive of interest and costs.” The settlement also provided that “the parties above fully and finally release one another from all claims related to the facts and issues raised in this action.” At the preliminary hearing the applicant confirmed that the respondent had complied with the terms of the Minutes of Settlement.
4On May 28, 2015, the applicant filed this Application in which he alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of ethnic origin, sexual solicitation and disability contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
Decision
5Section 23 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, 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.”
6The Tribunal has dismissed Applications even in circumstances in which the settlement documents did not contain a release or refer to the Code. See for example, Messiah v. Snap-on Tools of Canada, 2010 HRTO 1151, Holowka v. Ontario Nurses Association, 2010 HRTO 2171, and Zu v. Hamilton (City), 2010 HRTO 2461.
7In Better Beef Ltd. v. MacLean, 2006 CanLII 17930 (ON SCDC), the Divisional Court held that even though the release, which was very simply drafted, did not expressly release claims under the Pay Equity Act the releaser could not bring a claim under that Act.
8The applicant takes the position that the action only dealt with wrongful dismissal and the reasonable notice that he was entitled at common law. The applicant states that the Judge in the action only awarded settlement compensation for the wrongful dismissal period and that he was told to go to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario for the other issues. The applicant also takes the position that in the Defense filed at Small Claims Court that the respondent reflects that he was discriminated against on the basis of disability, on issue that had not been raised before by the applicant in his Statement of Claim.
9Though the applicant refers to a judgement made by the Judge, there is in fact no such judgement. The parties executed the Minutes of Settlement. In this case the task of the Tribunal is to examine the Minutes of Settlement to determine whether they preclude the applicant from continuing with this Application based on a plain reading of the document.
10I note that in fact the applicant did raise human rights issues in the action and these are explicitly referenced at paragraph 6 and 7 of the claim. He attached a number of letters to the Statement of Claim in which he also alleges breaches of the Code. Having reviewed this matter, I find that the applicant explicitly raised issues of employment-related discrimination and harassment in the action. I am also of the view that the basis of the action was the applicant’s wrongful termination from his employment, which is exactly the issue before this Tribunal.
11Having considered the matter I am satisfied that in the Minutes of Settlement the applicant has fully and finally released the respondent from all facts and issues raised in this action. This includes the reasons for the applicant’s termination from employment. Though the Release signed by the applicant does not expressly refer to the Code, I am of the view that the applicant having released “all claims related to the facts and issues raised in this action” has released the respondent of any claims under the Code. As such, it would be an abuse of the Tribunal’s process to permit this Application to proceed.
Order
12The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 1st day of March, 2016.
“Signed by”
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair