Barrie v. Canada Post and Association of Postal Officials of Canada

Barrie v. Canada Post and Association of Postal Officials of Canada

Once the Commission approved the minutes of settlement under s.48 of the CHRA the Tribunal ceased to have jurisdiction to re-open the human rights complaints or to decide disputes about that settlement; paragraph 9 of the minutes did not grant a right to re-open or re-mediate at the Tribunal and the motion to re-open is dismissed.

Citation
2016 CHRT 1
Parties
Complainant: Barbara Barrie; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation; Respondent: Association of Postal Officials of Canada
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Post Settlement Motion to Re Open After Commission Approval; Files Closed
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to re-open complaints after Commission approval under s.48 CHRA; minutes of settlement remain effective
Legal Topics
Settlement Approval Under S.48 CHRA, Tribunal Jurisdiction, Duress, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Mediation Confidentiality, Cooling Off Period, Enforcement of Settlements
Source Language
English
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Contract Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Settlement Approval Under S.48 CHRA Tribunal Jurisdiction Duress Fraudulent Misrepresentation +3 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara Barrie

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Canada Post Corporation

Respondent

Association of Postal Officials of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Complaint (canadian Human Rights Act) / Post Settlement Motion to Re Open After Commission Approval; Files Closed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to decide the validity of a settlement approved by the Commission under s.48 of the CHRA?
  2. 2 If jurisdiction exists, whether the minutes of settlement are null and void due to duress, misrepresentation/bad faith, or prompt withdrawal of consent

Ratio Decidendi

Once the Commission approved the minutes of settlement under s.48 of the CHRA the Tribunal ceased to have jurisdiction to re-open the human rights complaints or to decide disputes about that settlement; paragraph 9 of the minutes did not grant a right to re-open or re-mediate at the Tribunal and the motion to re-open is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to re-open complaints after Commission approval under s.48 CHRA; minutes of settlement remain effective

Orders

  • Documents filed in connection with the motion ordered confidential pursuant to s.52 CHRA and not to be disclosed except in judicial review proceedings under the Federal Courts Act
  • Tribunal files closed (file closure communicated July 27, 2015)