Forfeiture clause for breach of confidentiality and non disparagement provision in an HRTO settlement upheld

Forfeiture clause for breach of confidentiality and non disparagement provision in an HRTO settlement upheld

In L.C.C v M.M. (2023 HRTO 1138) Adjudicator Lavinia Inbar was dealing with an allegation that the former employee had breached a settlement agreement by publishing on LinkedIn the following statement:

“To all those inquiring, I have come to a resolution in my Human Rights Complaint against [the applicant corporation] and [the individual applicant] for sex discrimination.”

The Minutes of Settlement contained the following provisions:

Confidentiality: The Applicant may disclose the terms of these Minutes of Settlement to [their] immediate family, legal and financial advisors, on the condition that they also agree to maintain strict confidentiality of these Minutes of Settlement. Upon inquiry by any person about the resolution of the Application or conclusion of the Applicant’s employment with [the applicant corporation], the Applicant shall simply state that all matters have been resolved. The Applicant will make no mention of, or allude in any way whatsoever to, the receipt of money or the amount of money received from [the applicant corporation] in this Settlement.

Mutual Non-Disparagement: The parties agree that the purpose of this Settlement is to resolve any issues the Applicant has with the Respondents on a confidential basis and without any disparagement of the parties. Accordingly, the parties agree to refrain from making any oral, written or electronic communications about each other that are untrue, defamatory, disparaging, or derogatory, or acting in any manner that would be likely to damage the opposite party’s reputation in the eyes of customers, regulators, the general public, or employees, unless required by law. This non-disparagement includes but is not limited to any electronic communications through social media (such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, Snapchat, etc.)

Breach: The Applicant agrees that if [they breach] any of the obligations under this Settlement, and in particular the confidentiality obligation set out in paragraph 7 and the non-disparagement obligation in paragraph 8, above, [they] will be required to repay to the [corporate] Respondent the Settlement Payment paid to [them] under paragraph 2 of these Minutes of Settlement as liquidated damages, and will be responsible for any additional damages incurred by the [corporate] Respondent.

Understanding: The Applicant hereby declares that she has had an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice regarding the matters addressed in these Minutes of Settlement or has freely chosen not to do so, and that she fully understands her obligations under these Minutes of Settlement. She voluntarily accepts the terms and conditions set out in these Minutes of Settlement and agrees to finally settle all claims or potential claims, as described above, that she has or may have in future against the Respondents.

The HRT found that the confidentiality provision had been breached because they were only allowed to tell others about the resolution if someone inquired about it. Instead they published it to the whole world.

Secondly it was found that by referencing both the names of both the Corporate and individual Respondents and by referring to the issue as sex discrimination, this would, in the eye of the average reader of the post, likely damage the reputation of the Respondents.

The Adjudicator went on to find that the forfeiture clause was not a penalty clause because given the importance to the contracting parties that both sides respect the settlement and the difficulty of determining damages, that the forfeiture clause was a in fact a reasonable pre-estimate of damages and thus enforceable.

Share

Related Posts

Imagen 1

Employees with disabilities – accommodation strategies (Part I)

Accommodating employees with disabilities to the point of undue hardship under human rights legislation can be a complicated task. It’s important to make sure the accommodation process goes smoothly and the employee can focus on working as efficiently as possible, but employers may not be sure about what kinds of questions to ask disabled employees in order to meet their needs.

Christina Catenacci, BA, LLB, LLM, PhD

Read more
Imagen 1

Slaw: Canadian Human Rights Commission’s controversial ‘anti-hate’ policy

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recently posted a policy on its website concerning how it interprets and applies section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) when it receives an inquiry or complaint. The purpose of section 13 of the Act is to balance Canadians’ rights to equality and freedom of expression with respect to hate messages, as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The parliamentary record indicates that section 13 was initially included in the legislation to address activities of individuals and groups who used the telephone system to disseminate hate messages. In December 2001, parliament amended the CHRA by adding section 13(2), which makes it clear that Internet hate messages come under the jurisdiction of the commission.

Read the whole article on Slaw.ca.

Marie-Yosie Saint-Cyr, LL.B. Managing Editor

Read more
Imagen 1

The new age of workplace gossip – TMI!

I’ve discussed workplace gossip here before, and what bosses can do to prevent it or at least reduce the potential harm, but there are a couple of hyper-modern developments that I didn’t get into: reality television and the Internet. These two things have created a culture of “sharing”, for lack of a better word, that encourages people at play or work to divulge the most mundane and private details of their lives to others—the kind of information that one previously might only have shared with family or best friends.

Adam Gorley

Read more