Miscellaneous
This week on Legally Speaking with Michael Mulligan:Mediation efforts to resolve civil or family disputes are typically treated as being confidential and can’t be referred to if the case winds up in court. The reason for this is to permit candid discussions and compromise that result in disputes settling before going to trial. A recent Supreme Court of Canada case considered the admissibility of a “summary of mediated agreement” that was prepared following the mediation of a family law dispute. This summary was prepared by the mediator and, while not signed by either party, was adhered to by each of them for more than a year. Eventually, the mother in the family dispute decided to go to court to ask for more money than what was agreed to in the mediation. The father in the dispute asked that the agreement reached in the mediation be enforced. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that the concept of a “settlement exception” applied to the summary of mediation agreement and the father was entitled to rely on it in court. The decision is intended to promote mediation as a means of resolving family law disputes by permitting the parties to rely upon agreements reached in this way. Also, on the show, a judicial review of a BC Human Rights Tribunal decision is discussed. The unsuccessful judicial review involved a resort and spa that was purchased by a man from Hong Kong. The new owner was found to have made comments including that there were “too many white people” working at the resort, and that if hired Chinese employees because he believed they would not ask for overtime pay or pay for statutory holidays. Eight former Caucasian employees who lost their jobs brough the claim on the basis that they were desecrated against based on their race. One former employee also brought a successful claim based on discrimination based on sex because the new owner took her on a business trip to Hong Kong, where he booked a single hotel room for them to share after taking her though a market that sold sex toys. The judicial review, brought by the spa owner, was unsuccessful because he couldn’t demonstrate that the findings of the tribunal were patently unreasonable. Finally, on the show, a dispute between two former business partners who owned Kwantlen Pizza Sweets & Snacks is discussed. When the former business partners decided to separate, they came to an agreement to divide their business interests into two parts and then draw lots to determine which of them would get which part of the business. The agreement also provided that the former partner who didn’t get the Kwantlen Pizza part of business couldn’t open another Kwantlen Pizza within 4km.Sometime after the separation a “Kwantlen Pizza & Curry House” was opened a short distance from the Kwantlen Pizza Sweets & Snacks location. The former business partner who received the original Kwantlen Pizza Sweets & Snacks business brought a successful application for an interim injunction to prohibit his former business partner from being involved with Kwantlen Pizza & Curry House, despite a claim that this restaurant was being operated by his brother. Follow this link for a transcript fo the show and links to the cases discussed.