Palm v. International longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 500

Palm v. International longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 500

Because the five complaints are strikingly similar and interconnected, the Settlement terms are both relevant and necessary for the Remaining Respondents to prepare their defence and for the Tribunal to avoid double recovery and achieve a just disposition; therefore an exception to settlement privilege applies and disclosure to the Remaining Respondents is ordered subject to confidentiality restrictions.

Citation
2011 CHRT 12
Parties
Complainant: Leslie Palm; Employer Respondent: British Columbia Maritime Employers Association; Employer Respondent: Western Stevedoring Ltd; Respondent (union): International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 500; Respondent (individual): Richard Wilkinson; Respondent (individual): Cliff Willicome; Commission/intervener: Canadian Human Rights Commission
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint; Disclosure Motion / Ruling on Motion for Disclosure
Outcome
Disclosure ordered to Remaining Respondents with confidentiality restrictions
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Settlement Privilege, Systemic Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Remedies (damages and Releases)
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Procedural Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Disclosure Settlement Privilege Systemic Discrimination Hostile Work Environment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Palm

Complainant

British Columbia Maritime Employers Association

Employer Respondent

Western Stevedoring Ltd

Employer Respondent

International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 500

Respondent (union)

Richard Wilkinson

Respondent (individual)

Cliff Willicome

Respondent (individual)

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission/intervener

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint; Disclosure Motion / Ruling on Motion for Disclosure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement is privileged from disclosure
  2. 2 Whether an exception to settlement privilege applies
  3. 3 Whether the terms of the settlement are relevant and necessary to the Remaining Respondents' defence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the five complaints are strikingly similar and interconnected, the Settlement terms are both relevant and necessary for the Remaining Respondents to prepare their defence and for the Tribunal to avoid double recovery and achieve a just disposition; therefore an exception to settlement privilege applies and disclosure to the Remaining Respondents is ordered subject to confidentiality restrictions.

Court Disposition

Disclosure ordered to Remaining Respondents with confidentiality restrictions

Orders

  • Harris & Company shall provide a copy of the Settlement to Caroline & Gislason within fourteen days of this ruling.
  • Neither Caroline & Gislason nor the Remaining Respondents shall use the copy of the Settlement for any purpose other than the hearing or settlement of Ms. Palm’s complaints against the Remaining Respondents.