Cawson v. Air Canada

Cawson v. Air Canada

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over a settlement approved by the Commission under s.48 CHRA; in any event the evidence did not establish illegitimate pressure or coercion to meet the duress test and the Respondent complied with the 45-day payment obligation measured from receipt of written Commission approval, the Complainant accepted partial performance (cashed first cheque) and therefore the motion to reopen and void the settlement is denied; Respondent must issue a replacement for the expired second cheque.

Citation
2015 CHRT 17
Parties
Complainant: Douglas George Cawson; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Air Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Human Rights (chra) / Ruling on Motion to Reopen
Outcome
Motion denied; case not reopened.
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Duress, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Enforcement, Confidentiality, Finality of Settlements
Source Language
English
Human Rights Administrative Law Contract Law Settlement Agreements Duress Tribunal Jurisdiction Enforcement Confidentiality +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas George Cawson

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Air Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights (chra) / Ruling on Motion to Reopen

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over disputes relating to settlement agreements approved by the Commission under s.48 CHRA
  2. 2 Whether the settlement was procured by duress such that it should be voided
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent breached the settlement agreement such that it is null

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over a settlement approved by the Commission under s.48 CHRA; in any event the evidence did not establish illegitimate pressure or coercion to meet the duress test and the Respondent complied with the 45-day payment obligation measured from receipt of written Commission approval, the Complainant accepted partial performance (cashed first cheque) and therefore the motion to reopen and void the settlement is denied; Respondent must issue a replacement for the expired second cheque.

Court Disposition

Motion denied; case not reopened.

Orders

  • Confidentiality order maintained: minutes of settlement and related documents remain sealed and confidential.
  • Motion to reopen is denied and the settlement remains valid and final.