Robert G. Belliveau

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.

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.