Ramkissoon v. Process Products Limited, 2017 HRTO 1414

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Michelle Ramkissoon Applicant

-and-

Process Products Limited and Clara Khamissi Respondents

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jacek Janczur Date: October 26, 2017 Citation: 2017 HRTO 1414 Indexed as: Ramkissoon v. Process Products Limited

APPEARANCES

Michelle Ramkissoon, Applicant Self-represented

Process Products Limited and Clara Khamissi, Respondents Elliott Saccucci, Counsel

Introduction

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and family status, contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).

2In their Response, the respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release (the “Release”) releasing the corporate respondent and all of its directors, officers and employees from, among other things, claims under the Code. The personal respondent is an employee of the corporate respondent.

3By Registrar’s Letter dated March 2, 2017, the Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to deal with the matter.

4Neither party gave evidence at the preliminary hearing but both made submissions on the Release issue. After hearing the parties’ submissions, I find that the Application should be dismissed on the basis that it would be an abuse of process to proceed with it in light of the Release signed by the applicant. Even if I were to accept the applicant’s version of events, none of the reasons she has provided are valid reasons to set aside the Release she signed.

Factual Background

5The applicant was employed by the corporate respondent from 2013 until 2016. She alleges that, during that period, she was subjected to discriminatory remarks and treatment by another employee.

6The applicant also alleges that she was pressured to come back to work early when she needed to be off work caring for her son who had been hospitalized with pneumonia. She further alleges that management was displeased with her when she had to leave work early to pick up her son due to excessive construction on the route she had to travel.

7The applicant was laid off from her position on August 26, 2016 which she alleges was in the wake of a complaint she had made regarding the way she had been treated as the result of some unpaid invoices. The corporate respondent states that the applicant was laid off due to the elimination of her position as a result of an organizational restructuring of the company.

8When the corporate respondent informed the applicant that she was being laid off, she was offered an enhanced severance package that exceeded the statutory minimums to which she was entitled and a positive letter of reference. The applicant was given a seven day period in which to consider the offer and the Release and to obtain independent legal and financial advice.

Duress

9In her submissions, the applicant contends that she signed the Release under duress. She claims that she signed the Release under duress because it was only when the Release was signed that she would obtain a Record of Employment and the letter of reference which formed part of the severance package, and which she required in order to seek employment.

10The applicant states that she should not be bound by the Release because she felt she was pressured into signing it. The termination of a person’s employment is a stressful event and the applicant was likely feeling some pressure at having to make a decision in relation to the Release. This is common in all termination cases.

11However, it is only pressure amounting to duress that will justify setting aside a signed release. The circumstances of this case fall far short duress which has been defined by the courts as “coercion of will”: Taber v. Paris Boutique & Bridal Inc. (Paris Boutique), 2010 ONCA 157, at paras. 8-9. In this case, the corporate respondent provided the applicant with seven days to consider whether she wished to accept the offer in return for a signed release. The applicant took the full seven days to consider the matter and did not request additional time. She did not sign the Release under protest. The type of pressure described by the applicant is not the kind that would constitute duress.

12In signing the Release, the applicant released the respondents from all claims including claims under human rights legislation.

13As the Release provides for a full and final settlement of any claims arising out of the applicant’s employment with the corporate respondent, it would be an abuse of process to allow this Application to continue in the Tribunal’s process.

Other Reasons

14In addition to claiming that she signed the Release under duress, the applicant states that she did not know about the Code until after she had signed the Release, and that she was told not to show anyone the Release until after she had signed it. I note that, among other things, the Release does bar that the applicant from bringing claims under ‘human rights legislation’.

15The Release formed part of the severance package that was offered to her and the letter of offer stated that the applicant had a week to consider the offer and that she could disclose the offer to her spouse and to legal and financial advisors.

16I note that these are standard provisions in severance agreements such as the one into which the applicant entered. Her lack of knowledge about the Code and the limitation on the individuals with whom she could discuss the proposed severance package does not constitute valid reasons for setting aside the Release.

ORDER

17The Application is dismissed.