At issue on appeal in Sayarri v Provincial Health Services Authority, 2023 BCCA 413 was whether the Supreme Court of British Columbia has jurisdiction to determine whether the parties to a human rights complaint entered into a settlement agreement.
By way of background, the appellant was employed by the Provincial Health Services Authority (the “Health Authority”) from January 2018 until her termination in July 2019. In July 2020, the appellant filed a human rights complaint against the Health Authority and her manager alleging discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of age.
The parties attended a settlement meeting on March 5, 2021. At the conclusion of the settlement meeting, the mediator notified the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached. On March 12, 2021, the terms of the settlement agreement were sent to the appellant for her review.
However, on March 19, 2021, the appellant wrote the to Tribunal seeking to amend her human rights complaint to include the allegation that she experienced discrimination in the area of employment on the basis of mental disability. On March 27, 2021, the appellant advised that she would not sign the settlement agreement.
On July 28, 2021, the respondents filed a petition seeking to enforce the settlement agreement pursuant to section 30(1) of the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 [Code]. Section 30(1) of the Code provides that “if there has been a breach of the terms of a settlement agreement, a party to the settlement agreement may apply to the Supreme Court to enforce the settlement agreement to the extent that the terms of the settlement agreement could have been ordered by the Tribunal.”
The chambers judge held that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under s. 30(1) of the Code to determine whether the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The appellants appealed on the basis that the authority to determine whether the parties entered into a valid settlement agreement rests exclusively with the Human Rights Tribunal.
Mr. Justice Fitch, writing for the Court of Appeal, upheld the decision of the chambers judge, confirming that s. 30(1) of the Code empowers the Supreme Court to determine whether parties to a human rights complaint have entered into a settlement agreement:
[32] … By expressly empowering a Supreme Court judge to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement reached in relation to a human rights complaint, the legislature must be taken to have clothed the Court with the power to resolve disputes necessarily bound up with the making of an enforcement order. That the Supreme Court has the authority to resolve such disputes—including whether the parties entered into a settlement agreement—is practically necessary for the accomplishment of the objectives of the legislation and may be considered to be granted by implication.
Takeaway
This decision confirms the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to determine whether parties to a human rights complaint have entered into a settlement agreement. As a result, insurers can take solace in the enforceability of HRT settlements.