Kevin Gibson

The applicant university brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent sports organization from releasing a tribunal decision regarding a football player's eligibility.

The applicant argued that the parties had previously reached a settlement agreement wherein the respondent agreed not to pursue the eligibility complaint.

The court found it had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement under contract law.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a strong prima facie case of a binding settlement, irreparable harm to the players and the university's reputation if the injunction was denied, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.

The interlocutory injunction was granted.

The moving party sought to strike an affidavit filed in support of an application for leave to appeal, arguing the affidavit was irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 89 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court held the opinion evidence lacked proper foundation, consisted largely of sworn argument on ultimate issues, and improperly attacked the correctness of the appellate decision below.

The Court reaffirmed that affidavit evidence will rarely be useful on leave applications unless it assists in establishing public importance through material not apparent from the record.

The motion was granted, the affidavit and related memorandum portions were struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the moving party in any event of the cause.

In a multi-party civil action concerning alleged paint failure and corrosion losses, the appellant entered into Pierringer Agreements with some defendants and disclosed all non-financial terms but withheld settlement amounts.

The non-settling defendants sought pre-trial disclosure of those amounts.

The Court held settlement privilege protects the content of successful settlement negotiations, including negotiated amounts, absent a demonstrated countervailing public interest that outweighs settlement policy.

The asserted litigation and tactical interests did not establish tangible prejudice sufficient to justify an exception.

The appeal was allowed and confidentiality of settlement amounts was maintained.