The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has granted Lafarge Canada’s summary judgment motion, dismissing a lawsuit filed by former employee who alleged he was sexually harassed by a colleague and suffered subsequent health issues.
The court’s decision hinged on a release the worker — T.M. — signed upon his termination, which the court found to be binding despite his claims of duress and lack of capacity.
Background
T.M. worked for Lafarge Canada Inc. from 2014 to 2016 as a quality control technician. During his tenure, he reported being harassed by a colleague, K.C., including being called names like “pilates” and “pretty boy.”
It culminated in an incident on June 12, 2015, when K.C. allegedly grabbed him by the hips and simulated intercourse in front of other employees. T.M. said he reported the incident to management but was told to ignore and avoid K.C.
Following this incident, T.M. said he began suffering from panic attacks and other psychological issues, which he attributed to the harassment.
Despite these claims, T.M. continued working until taking short-term disability leave in the summer of 2016 due to medical issues. He was terminated on Aug. 3, 2016, due to a corporate reorganization, and on Aug. 16, 2016, he signed a release that covered all claims, including those related to the alleged harassment.
Legal arguments and court’s analysis
Lafarge Canada sought summary judgment, arguing that the release T.M. signed was binding and resolved all disputes. The worker, in turn, sought to have the release declared invalid on the grounds that he lacked capacity when signing it, was under duress, and that the release was unconscionable.
The court’s analysis focused on several key points:
Capacity and duress: T.M. argued that his psychological condition impaired his capacity to understand the implications of the release.
He provided testimony about his panic attacks and other symptoms but did not furnish admissible medical evidence to support his claims. The court found inconsistencies in his testimony and noted that hospital records did not corroborate his claims of PTSD or other psychological diagnoses at the time he was hospitalized in May 2016.
“(T.M.) deposed that he suffered from panic attacks, nightmares, and flashbacks but did not file any evidence that these symptoms were such that he was incapable of signing the release but for his bald statement,” the court said. “Given his inconsistent evidence, I do not afford his statements much weight.”
Furthermore, the court found that his ability to make informed choices, such as opting for salary continuance over a lump sum payment, demonstrated his capacity.
Economic duress: T.M. claimed that he signed the release under economic duress, feeling he had no other reasonable alternative. However, the court determined that the pressure he described did not rise to the level of coercion required to invalidate a contract.
The court emphasized that Lafarge provided him with options and the opportunity to seek legal counsel, which he attempted but failed to do due to lawyer unavailability.
Unconscionability: The court also examined whether the release was unconscionable. Under the Supreme Court’s guidance in the 2020 ruling in Uber Technologies v. Heller, the court considered whether there was an inequality of bargaining power and if the resulting agreement was improvident.
While the court acknowledged an inequality of bargaining power, it did not find the release to be improvident, given the severance terms were typical for an employee in T.M.’s position.
Ultimately, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granting Lafarge’s summary judgment motion. The release was deemed binding, and the statement of claim was dismissed.
For more information, see Manuel v. Lafarge et al., 2024 ONSC 3790 (CanLII).
