The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has tossed out a wrongful dismissal lawsuit that an advisor, Robert Connor, brought against his former firm, Scotia Capital Inc., ruling that the settlement the advisor signed on the way out the door precludes the lawsuit.
According to the decision, Scotia Capital terminated Connor in October 2012 after it discovered he’d breached Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) rules by making unsuitable investment recommendations and personally compensating clients for their losses without the firm’s knowledge.
The decision indicates that Connor and Scotia Capital negotiated a settlement outlining the details of his termination, and that they signed a settlement agreement by the end of 2012 that included a provision waiving “any rights that he has had or may have under the terms of his employment agreement.”
In October 2014, Connor commenced a civil action against the firm claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, defamation and conversion of his book. Scotia Capital brought a motion to dismiss the action “on the grounds that the settlement agreement and the release are enforceable and preclude Mr. Connor from making any claim with respect to his employment.”
The court sided with the firm, ruling that the agreement was enforceable and prevents the lawsuit from going ahead. It found that “Scotia acted in good faith” when negotiating the settlement; did not make any false representations during those discussions; did not abuse its bargaining power; and it’s not the firm’s fault that he did not obtain independent legal advice on the terms of the agreement.
“Scotia encouraged Mr. Connor to seek legal advice. Scotia invited Mr. Connor to bring legal counsel, a friend or his wife to participate in one of the telephone calls to discuss settlement. He did speak with lawyers during the negotiations and led Scotia to believe that he was seeking legal advice. It is disingenuous for him to say that the settlement agreement should be set aside because he did not have legal representation,” the decision states.
“There is no evidence that Mr. Connor was mentally compromised during negotiations and when he signed the settlement agreement and release,” the decision adds. “I find that there is no basis to set aside the settlement agreement and release on this ground.”
Ultimately, the court concluded that “Mr. Connor signed a clear and unambiguous settlement agreement and release … There is no reason to conclude that the settlement agreement and release are unenforceable.”
Thus, the court granted the firm’s motion and dismissed the case.
Photo copyright: belchonock/123RF