Dave Grindlay v. Calgary Telus Convention Centre
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
Decision Maker: Beth Bryant
Decision Level: Tribunal
Keywords: Human Rights Legislation – Effect of contracts excluding application of human rights legislation – Employment severance agreements – Panel asked to determine the validity of a severance agreement – Complainant terminated by respondent from employment during probationary period after receiving reprimand regarding his performance as event services supervisor – Complainant signed termination letter and Release at termination meeting, and later argued he suffered from drug and alcohol addiction and signed the Release under duress and coercion – Panel considered factors as outlined in Queen’s Bench decision in Chow – Complainant failed to show any factor sufficient to render Release invalid and unenforceable – Severance agreement was valid and enforceable.
Summary:
In a preliminary hearing regarding the validity and enforceability of a severance agreement, the complainant argued he signed the Release under duress and coercion. The complainant began employment with the respondent on June 23, 2008 as an event services supervisor. On November 27, 2008, the complainant was reprimanded by his supervisor regarding his poor performance. Evidence showed the complainant had been warned earlier regarding performance issues in September 2008. After receiving the reprimand, the complainant stated he relapsed into a pre-existing drug and alcohol addiction. After receiving the reprimand, the complainant requested a personal day off, missed a follow-up meeting with his supervisor, then worked the following day, November 30, 2008. The complainant had sent an e-mail to his supervisor outlining his addiction problems, but it was sent after the respondent decided to terminate the complainant’s employment. On December 1, 2008, the complainant was advised by the respondent he failed his probationary period and was thereby terminated from employment with the respondent. The complainant signed the termination letter and Release agreement at the termination meeting and did not take the document home for further consideration, nor did the complainant seek independent legal advice as suggested by the respondent at the termination meeting. HELD: The severance agreement was valid and enforceable; the Commission did not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the complaint. The Panel considered factors outlined in the Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Chow. The Panel found the language of the Release clear and understandable. The Panel found evidence the respondent discussed the details of the severance agreement with the complainant at the termination meeting. The Panel further found the respondent did not act in an unconscionable manner, and did not exert any undue influence or coercion in obtaining the complainant’s signature. The Panel found no duress or other factors sufficient to invalidate the severance agreement.
Cases Considered: Chow v. Mobil Oil (1999) A.J. 949; Universal v. Tankships Inc. v. International Transport Workers’ Federation JC PC (1982) 2 R.E.R. 67 at 88 (H.L.)
Read the complete decision PDF
Due to confidentiality concerns, the Commission cannot reply
to complaints of discrimination using the Internet.
Please contact the Commission by telephone or regular mail
if you have a specific complaint.
The Commission will make publications available in accessible multiple formats upon request. Multiple formats provide access for people with disabilities who do not read conventional print.
