Maria Gergin

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by disclosing the financial terms to its staff.

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement explicitly applied only to the applicant and imposed no such obligation on the respondent.

As there was no ambiguity in the contract, extrinsic evidence regarding mediation negotiations was inadmissible.

The application was dismissed, without prejudice to the applicant's right to pursue a separate reprisal claim.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss portions of the applicant's human rights application as untimely, arguing they related to discrete incidents occurring more than one year prior to filing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations of harassment, poisoned work environment, reprisals, and termination shared a common theme.

The Tribunal concluded the events constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, with the last incident occurring within the one-year limitation period.

The plaintiff consultant brought an action after being terminated one week into a six‑month consulting contract as research coordinator for a community health project.

The court found that a binding verbal consulting agreement had been formed despite the absence of a written contract.

Because the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than an employee, the contract was terminable at will and damages were not the full contract value.

The court awarded compensation on a quantum meruit basis for six days of work performed and granted punitive damages due to the defendant’s harsh and deliberate manner of termination.