Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

Can you tell your friends about the terms of your Human Rights complaint settlement?

by David Doorey January 18, 2011
written by David Doorey January 18, 2011

You file a human rights complaint against your employer, and the complaint ends up getting settled.  Perhaps your employer gives you some money, in exchange for the complaint being dropped.  This happens all the time.  Often, the employer insists on some sort of non-disclosure term in the settlement agreement.  The purpose of this clause is to stop the employee from running around telling everyone what the settlement was.  The employer usually will not admit any wrongdoing, and doesn’t want the employee telling people that the employer gave her money, since that may suggest to people that the employer was admitting to guilt.
Human Rights codes usually include a provision for enforcement of these settlements.  In Ontario, is is section 45.9, which gives the Tribunal power to consider a complaint that a party has violated a settlement.   If the complaint is that a party violated the non-disclosure part of the settlement, then the issue will be what the non-disclosure covered, and what the person said.  A very strong non-disclosure clause will prohibit the employee from disclosing the fact of a settlement or the content of the settlement.  In other words, the employee can’t talk about the settlement at all.   But sometimes the non-disclosure term is not so clear.
That was the case in a decision released last week by the Ontario HR Tribunal involving a Canadian Tire store. The non-disclosure clause there said that the parties will maintain “strict confidentiality of the terms of these Minutes of Settlement”, and that the employee “shall not discuss or disclose the terms of this settlement with anyone other than” her spouse.  Afterwards, the employee told another Canadian Tire employee that she had file a complaint against the employer and that the complaint had been settled.  Canadian Tire brought a complaints under Section 45.9 alleging that the employee had violated the settlement agreement by disclosing that a settlement had been breached, and that also that by disclosing the existence of a settlement, the employee has “disparaged” the employer.
The Tribunal said nice try, employer, but the settlement very clearly says that the employee can’t disclose the “terms” of the settlement.  Disclosing that there was a settlement is not the same thing as disclosing the terms of a settlement:

The language of article 8 sets out an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the “terms” of the Minutes of Settlement. The agreement did not prohibit a party from disclosing the fact that there was a settlement. Accordingly, there was no breach if the applicant disclosed merely that there was a settlement…   I note that it is open to parties to negotiate into settlements exactly what a party should say if asked a question about the Tribunal Application. Parties may also negotiate language that prohibits either party from talking about the fact of the claim or the settlement.

The employer’s complaint was dismissed.  The Tribunal basically told the employer that if they wanted a gag on telling people there was a settlement, then they should have included that in the settlement.

By the way, what remedy do you think the Tribunal would have ordered had it found that the employee did violate the settlement agreement?  Section 45.9(8) gives the Tribunal power to “make any order that it considers appropriate to remedy the circumstances” when a breach of a settlement is found.   Should the employee be required to repay any money that Canadian Tire might have paid her in the settlement?

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
John Crispo Public Policy Forum on Labour Issue – This Wednesday
next post
Jotwell Worklaw: Cool New Website Blog on Employment Law Stuff

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.