In Dolski v. Staples Canada ULC ( 2021 MBQB 29) Justice Kroft had a situation with the following chronology:
2)Plaintiff was terminated without cause and was given a settlement offer containing a release.
3) Few days later the Plaintiff signs the Release.
4) Few days later the Defendant invites her to submit her outstanding expenses.She submits expenses for $16,000 and they pay it .
5) A few months later she submits another $34,000 of expenses. The Defendant admits they are legit but refuses to pay because of the Release.
The Court found that the release did not block her entitlement for the following reasons:
The Release referred to many items being released but did not refer to expenses, nor was it discussed the the termination meeting, thus there was no meeting of the minds on this issue.
The Defendant knew that the Plaintiff had a claim for expenses and intentionally got her to sign the release first.
Although not referred to in the reasoning one cannot ignore the fact that they voluntarily paid the first $16,000 after the release was signed and only denied payment when they were presented with another legitimate but much larger request.
Although not referred to in the decision, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have a lawyer when she signed the release.
If you want a copy of this case, email me at email@example.com