A full and final release signed by an employee diagnosed with schizophrenia is binding and precludes a subsequent discrimination claim under Ontario’s Human Rights Code, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has ruled.
The tribunal dismissed the application of F.E., who alleged discrimination based on disability after being terminated by Atlantic Industries Ltd. The dismissal centred around a release F.E. signed following his termination, which explicitly barred future claims, including those under the Code.
Background and termination
F.E. was hired by Atlantic Industries on April 26, 2021. At the time of his hiring, F.E. noted he had mental health disabilities on an employment form but did not provide medical documentation or request accommodation.
On January 16, 2023, Atlantic Industries terminated F.E.’s employment, offering two weeks’ salary in lieu of notice plus two additional weeks’ pay and an outstanding bonus payment, contingent upon signing a full and final release. The release specifically included a clause covering claims under the Human Rights Code and confirmed the employee had received, or waived, legal advice.
F.E. signed and emailed the release to the employer later that same day.
Claim of incapacity
F.E. later filed a human rights application claiming discrimination due to disability, asserting he lacked the capacity to understand the release because of schizophrenia and suicidal ideations at the time he signed it.
In a preliminary hearing, the HRTO considered whether F.E. had the capacity to understand the release when he signed it. F.E. testified he was experiencing a schizophrenic episode on the day of termination, alleging that his wife intervened to prevent him from self-harm. He claimed his wife wrote an email to the company that afternoon, further indicating his incapacity.
However, the tribunal found discrepancies in F.E.’s testimony, notably an email he sent the afternoon of his termination. The email was clear, detailed, and signed by him, directly contradicting his claim of incapacity. The tribunal concluded F.E. had personally written the email, suggesting mental clarity.
Insufficient medical evidence
F.E. provided medical notes dated over a year after the termination, stating generally that he experiences disorganized thinking in stressful situations. The tribunal gave these notes no weight because neither medical professional testified, and the notes lacked contemporaneous evidence of his condition at the time of signing the release.
Moreover, F.E. did not seek medical attention immediately following his termination, nor did he exhibit signs of incapacity in subsequent correspondence with his employer regarding salary payments.
Findings on capacity
The tribunal emphasized the high threshold required to prove mental incapacity in signing a release. Given the lack of credible, contemporaneous medical evidence and the coherent communications from F.E. immediately following termination, the tribunal concluded F.E. was fully capable of understanding the significance of the release when he signed it.
Furthermore, the tribunal highlighted F.E.’s strategic actions post-termination, including securing new employment shortly thereafter and ensuring overlapping salary payments from both employers. These actions demonstrated his clear understanding of the implications of the release.
Abuse of process
The tribunal cited established jurisprudence stressing the importance of upholding full and final settlements unless exceptional circumstances such as duress or lack of capacity can be clearly proven.
Finding none of these circumstances applicable, the tribunal ruled that allowing the application to proceed would constitute an abuse of process. It dismissed F.E.’s claim entirely based on the validity and comprehensiveness of the release.
For more information, see F.E. v. Atlantic Industries Limited, 2025 HRTO 531 (CanLII).
