Employee had chance to review contract waiving employer liability in accident before signing: Court
An Ontario independent contractor is bound by the waiver agreement he signed and can’t sue the companies for whom he worked for damages from an automobile accident that happened while he was working, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled.
Yehuda Kalash was a truck driver who was an independent owner and operator of his own business. Kalash had contracts with two companies, Carrier One Express and Train Trailer Rentals Limited and had worked under contracts to other companies previously.
The contracts with Carrier One and Train Trailer Rentals came about in September 2005 when Kalash applied for a truck driver job with them. Kalash didn’t want to become an employee as he stood to earn more as an independent owner and operator, so the companies presented a series of documents outlining their relationship, including a memorandum of agreement, waiver agreement and capital compensation plan trust enrolment form. The latter two documents allowed Kalash to enroll in a private disability insurance plan in exchange for waiving his right to commence legal proceedings for loss of income, pain and suffering, and other damages that might arise out of injuries suffered from an accident. The insurance plan premiums would be deducted from his pay.
Kalash claimed he was told to simply “go home and sign the documents” and he didn’t need to read them, as he had to agree to enroll in the plan and sign the waiver in order to be hired by the two companies. There was no time limit for him to review and return the signed documents, but Kalash wanted to start work as soon as possible. He signed and returned the documents, with his wife's signature as a witness.
On Aug. 8, 2006, Kalash was in a single-vehicle accident in the tractor-trailer he was driving. He suffered serious permanent injuries and received $700 per week in disability benefits for five years under the capital compensation plan. Five years was the maximum time period set out in the plan, so the benefits stopped in 2011. He then launched an action against Carrier One and Train Trailer Rentals for damages for pain and suffering and loss of income resulting from the accident.
The court found Kalash had time to review the documents outlining the capital compensation plan and the waiver agreement and he clearly understood the nature of the documents. Kalash claimed there was an inequality of bargaining power between himself and the companies, but the court found he could have taken as much time as he needed to review the documents and seek legal advice. The only thing that may have rushed Kalash into signing the documents was his own desire to start working soon, said the court.
The court also found Kalash took advantage of and benefitted from the capital compensation plan by receiving benefits for five years. He also sued the insurance provider and received a lump sum settlement for his injuries. In addition, the coverage he received under the compensation plan was sufficient consideration for giving up his right to sue the companies, said the court.
