A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice illustrates the challenges employers can face when attempting to enforce a signed release. In Swampillai v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 4023 (CanLII), the Court was asked to consider on a motion for summary judgment on whether or not the release signed by Mr. Swampillai at the time of the termination of his employment barred him from pursuing a claim for long term disability benefits. Justice Cavanaugh found that Mr. Swampillai had signed the release under circumstances that were unconscionable and, as such, the release could not prevent him from pursuing a claim for long term disability (LTD) benefits. Mr. Swampillai was thus free to continue his action against his former employer, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA) and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life), who acted as the administrator of RSA’s long term disability benefits program, even though the release signed by Mr. Swampillai specifically cited “long term disability benefits” as a released claim. So what went wrong for RSA? To understand the Court’s decision, we need to review the circumstances that existed at the time that RSA and Mr. Swampillai negotiated the severance package.
Mr. Swampillai had worked for RSA as first a contract employee and then a permanent, full-time employee since 2001. He worked as a distribution clerk and in the mail room, with some physical demands like lifting and moving. In or around 2013, he developed certain medical conditions that prevented him from working in his role as a distribution clerk. He first went on short term disability leave and then transitioned to long term disability leave, where he remained for a period of two years. Like many LTD plans, RSA’s LTD distinguished between being disabled from one’s “own occupation” and “any occupation.” After two years of disability, an employee would only qualify for continued LTD benefits if they could show that they were disabled from “any occupation.” If not, they were expected to return to work in some capacity.
Unlike many employers, RSA was self-insured for long term disability benefits. RSA retained Sun Life to adjudicate employee claims for LTD but Sun Life was not responsible for paying these benefits. RSA relied on Sun Life to communicate with employees regarding their claims, collect and review medical evidence and make a determination as to eligibility for benefits.
In March of 2015, Mr. Swampillai was notified by Sun Life that his eligibility for LTD benefits would cease as of July 22, 2015, on the basis that he was not disabled from performing “any occupation.” He was told he had until October 22, 2015, to appeal Sun Life’s decision. On May 12, 2015, Mr. Swampillai appealed the decision and provided further medical information to Sun Life in support of his claim. On June 2, 2015, he received a second denial letter. Again, he was advised that he had until October 22, 2015, to appeal. On June 19, 2015, Mr. Swampillai retained a law firm to assist him with his claim for LTD benefits. Meanwhile, RSA had conducted an evaluation as to whether or not it had alternative work for Mr. Swampillai that would fit his restrictions and had concluded that no such positions were available. Accordingly, it notified Mr. Swampillai by way of a letter dated June 24, 2015, that his employment with the company was being terminated. RSA offered Mr. Swampillai a severance package in exchange for a release of claims against the company. Notably, the June 24, 2015, termination letter from RSA confirmed that Mr. Swampillai’s LTD benefits would end as of July 21, 2015, and the RSA release listed “long term disability benefits” among the released claims. Mr. Swampillai was given until July 22, 2015, to review the offer and sign the release. Mr. Swampillai sent portions of the severance offer to his lawyer, whose assistant advised that he should speak to an employment law specialist about the offer. Mr. Swampillai did not do so. However, he did negotiate a more favourable severance offer with RSA before eventually signing the release on July 14, 2015. Mr. Swampillai gave evidence via affidavit that prior to signing the release, he had notified RSA in a telephone call that he disputed Sun Life’s decision regarding his entitlement to LTD benefits.
In June of 2017, Mr. Swampillai commenced an action against RSA and Sun Life for allegedly unpaid LTD benefits. RSA brought this motion for summary judgment, asking the Court to enforce the release and dismiss Mr. Swampillai’s claim. Mr. Swampillai’s counsel argued that the release was unconscionable and should be set aside. The test for showing that an agreement between two parties is unconscionable has four elements:
In the last six months, Canadian appellate courts have considered employer’s bonus plans three times. Having discussed the implications of these decisions with many clients, the common reaction seems to be: But that isn’t what we meant when we drafted our plan! Rather than debate how language can be misinterpreted, the more constructive approach simply is to fix it. When these appellate decisions are considered carefully, the take-away message for employers is that incentive plan language will be carefully scrutinized and entitlement only excluded where the language clearly supports that result. Accordingly, now is the time for employers to review their existing plans and policies and update them, where appropriate, to ensure that they will be interpreted as they intended.Read Full Article
In another good news development for employers, the Supreme Court of Canada has denied leave to appeal in Oudin v Le Centre Francophone de Toronto.Read Full Article
In late 2016 the Ontario Human Rights Commission (the OHRC) issued a new version of its policy on discrimination due to disability, which has been renamed the Policy on Ableism and Discrimination Based on Disability. In its press release announcing the update, the OHRC noted that since the policy was first launched in 2001, there had been significant developments in case law, research and international human rights standards which merited a review of the former policy. The new policy includes use of the term “ableism,” which the OHRC defines as “attitudes in society that devalue and limit the potential of people with disabilities.”Read Full Article
2016 was a significant year for employment law with precedent-setting decisions on a variety of issues combined with new legislation that continues to alter the Canadian employment law landscape. While a number of these decisions suggest that a common sense approach to employment law issues may be underway, other decisions and legislative developments highlight the potential liabilities facing employers and the need to remain vigilant.Read Full Article
The Ontario Ministry of Labour has announced that it is creating a new working group to provide the government with advice and feedback on how to address the gender wage gap in Ontario. The working group will be comprised of members of the business, labour and human resources communities, as well as representatives of women’s advocacy groups. The working groups are expected to focus on how the government can better leverage tools such as the Pay Equity Act and parental leaves to address gendered wage disparity in the workplace. The Ontario government estimates that Ontario’s gender wage gap ranges from 14% to 26%.Read Full Article
Late last week the Ontario Ministry of Labour posted the outcome of its recent blitz focused on temporary foreign workers and young workers. For the purpose of the blitz, workers under 25 were classified as “young workers.” Both categories of workers are considered to be vulnerable by the Ministry of Labour.Read Full Article
The Ministry of Labour has announced a targeted compliance blitz focused on “repeat violators” of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the ESA). The blitz will take place during both September and October 2016. Although the Ministry did not define “repeat violators,” it is safe to assume that it refers to employers who have been prior recipients of compliance orders or successful claims under the ESA.Read Full Article
In the fall of 2014, Justice Lemon of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided that a private school had wrongfully dismissed a teacher who had committed academic fraud by submitting grades he knew to be inaccurate and then lied about it when confronted. The decision seemed all the more egregious as, in addition to awarding the teacher 12 months’ salary and benefits, the Court also found the teacher became disabled following the termination of his employment and was entitled to disability benefits in addition to $130,000 of legal costs awarded on a substantial indemnity basis.Read Full Article