The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has dismissed a discrimination claim based on sexual orientation due to a pre-existing settlement agreement the worker signed.
C.G., the applicant, alleged that his former manager, D.L., engaged in discriminatory behaviour that led to his termination from a cannabis store in Ottawa. C.G. claimed that his former manager made homophobic remarks, engaged in homophobic conduct, and ultimately dismissed him after discovering he was gay.
These allegations were brought under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended.
The release agreement
Central to the Tribunal’s decision was a Full and Final Release that C.G. had signed upon the termination of his employment. In exchange for a severance payment, he agreed to release his employer from any and all claims related to his employment or its termination, explicitly including claims under the Human Rights Code.
The relevant section of the release stated:
“I hereby wholly release the Employer, its affiliates, related entities, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors and assigns and all of its past and present officers, directors, shareholders, employees, contractors, insurers, agents, and assigns (collectively referred to as the ‘Releasees’), from any and all actions, causes of action, complaints, demands and claims whatsoever in existence prior to, on, or after the date hereof, directly or indirectly arising from my employment with the Employer or the termination of my employment.”
Tribunal’s analysis and decision
The Tribunal, guided by precedents such as O’Regan v. Firestone Textiles and Cuba et. al. v. Global Egg Corporation, focused on the principle of finality in legal agreements. According to these cases, a valid and binding agreement that settles legal matters between parties should be upheld to prevent abuse of process.
C.G. argued that he had signed the release under duress, describing his state as one of post-trauma induced by the manager’s alleged actions. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of duress in the legal sense, which requires illegitimate pressure sufficient to coerce an individual’s will.
As stated in Taber v. Paris Boutique & Bridal Inc., duress involves pressure that the law regards as illegitimate and coercive.
Without finding any basis for C.G.’s claim of duress, the Tribunal held that the release was binding and covered the claims he sought to bring.
In dismissing the application, the Tribunal concluded that permitting the case to proceed would violate the principle of finality and be unfair to to the manager. The decision reads:
“In exchange for money, the applicant agreed to release the respondent from liability under the Code. He has presented no basis upon which to grant relief from that agreement. Permitting the Application to continue would be unfair to the respondent and would offend the principle of finality. The Application is an abuse of process.”
Key takeaways
- Finality of Release Agreements: The ruling reinforces that release agreements, once signed, are typically upheld to maintain the principle of finality in legal disputes.
- Claims of Duress: For a claim of duress to invalidate a release agreement, there must be evidence of illegitimate pressure that coerced the individual’s will.
- Employment Law Precedents: This case aligns with existing legal precedents that uphold clear and unambiguous release agreements in employment contexts.
For more information, see Graham v. Leger, 2024 HRTO 1000 (CanLII).
