Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/richtertriallaw-production/public/wp-content/themes/richter/archive.php on line 16

Blog Posts

Settlement Offers and Releases: Pitfalls and Problems


Most litigants are able to resolve their issues without trial by agreement. Releases are a standard part of the process and provide assurance to both sides of the transaction that the issue has been laid to rest and neither side can bring any future claims. Often the releases are drafted using standard boiler plate language. However, sometimes releases contain more restrictive clauses including confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. If these clauses are not negotiated as part of settlement, they can cause problems for both parties and their counsel in the future, including a determination that the settlement itself is unenforceable.


Non-Disparagement Clauses vs. Confidentiality Clauses

Non-disparagement clauses are aimed at protecting reputation and public perception . These clauses typically prevent a person from communicating anything negative about the other party. This can extend from preventing a person from telling a close friend something negative to posting negative comments on social media or on google reviews. Disparagement is not the same as defamation. Non-defamation only prevents a person from making false or untrue statements while non-disparagement prevents a person from communicating negative statements, even if they are true. The consequences for breaking a non-disparagement clause can include forfeiting any settlement monies that the party received.


Confidentiality clauses are aimed at keeping the terms of settlement (including the amount) and the information exchanged in the course of litigation confidential. Confidentiality clauses can be extremely restrictive in terms of the information that a party can reveal or they can be specifically directed to only preventing disclosure of certain facts.

A binding settlement?

Problems can arise where counsel for parties agree on settlement but not on the specific terms of the release. Often the parties will agree on the amount of the settlement and that a release should be signed but don’t discuss whether confidentiality or non-disparagement is part of that settlement. When one party sends over a release that includes a restrictive non-disparagement or confidentiality that the other party refuses to sign the question becomes whether those parties truly reached a binding settlement agreement.


To determine whether there is a “binding settlement” the courts look at whether the parties reached an agreement on “all essential terms”. The terms of an offer must be clear and unambiguous and the acceptance of that offer must be absolute and unqualified. The courts are not in a position to make the contract between the parties, they can only determine whether the parties truly had a “meeting of the minds” on the essential issues. Where a party seeks a release that includes restrictive confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses that severely limits a party to speak freely about the matter, it is crucial to negotiate these terms as part of the settlement; not after.


A recent chambers decision of Madam Justice Murray in Wannan v. Hutchison, 2020 BCSC 1233 provided a useful summary on the law courts will apply in determining whether a settlement is truly binding:


[10] The ordinary rules of contractual interpretation apply in determining whether there was a binding settlement agreement. In Fieguth v. Acklands Ltd., 1989 CanLII 2744 (BC CA), Chief Justice McEachern, writing for the Court, stated that:

“[35]In these matters it is necessary to separate the question of formation of contract from its completion. The first question is whether the parties have reached an agreement on all essential terms. There is not usually any difficulty in connection with the settlement of a claim or action for cash. That is what happened here and as a settlement implies a promise to furnish a release and, if there is an action, a consent dismissal unless there is a contractual agreement to the contrary, there was agreement on all essential terms.

[11]The terms of an offer must be clear and unambiguous: The Owners, Strata Plan NW 3079 v. Chan, 2010 BCSC 527 at para. 81. The acceptance must be absolute and unqualified: Urban Communications Inc. v. BCNET Networking Society, 2014 BCSC 485 at para. 74.

[12] It is not for the court to formulate a contract between parties. The court must view the transaction on an objective basis to determine whether there was a meeting of the minds between the parties. It is only if there has been an agreement on all of the essential terms that the transaction can be declared an effective contract: All Out Contracting Ltd. v. Gourlay, 2020 BCSC 481 at para. 31.

Where a non-disparagement clause is overly broad and not reasonably contemplated by the parties as part of the settlement, a court may refuse to enforce a settlement. This was the case in the recent decision of Wannan v. Hutchison, 2020 BCSC 1233 where a plaintiff who had been injured by her naturopath had agreed to terms of settlement that included a release but without realizing that the non-disparagement clause in the release was so broad it would have prevented her from even discussing the treatment she received. The court found while there was a binding settlement agreement of the issues it would be unjust to enforce the settlement. The court explicitly noted that there would be prejudice to the plaintiff if the settlement clause was enforced as it would result in the plaintiff being silenced from publicly warning others about the treatment she received.


To ensure that settlement agreements are fully enforceable, its wise practice for both parties to discuss and agree on the terms of the release at the time settlement is discussed. Subsequent court hearings to address the issue after the fact can be time consuming and costly.

Settlement Offers and Releases: Pitfalls and Problems
August 21, 2020

Settlement Offers and Releases: Pitfalls and Problems Most litigants are able to resolve their issues without trial by agreement. Releases are a standard part of the process and provide assurance to both sides of the transaction that the issue has been laid to rest and neither side can bring any future claims. Often the releases […]

Yes, your insurer is obligated to deal with your insurance claim in “good faith”. What does that mean?
October 31, 2019

Yes, your insurer is obligated to deal with your insurance claim in “good faith”. What does that mean? When you purchase any insurance policy such as extended medical, travel, auto, or homeowners, your insurance company is required to deal with you fairly when you make an insurance claim for benefits under your policy. An insurer […]

Failure to Comply is Fatal: Recent BC Supreme Court Decision on Document Production
June 23, 2019

Failure to Comply is Fatal: Recent BC Supreme Court Decision on Document Production When it comes to demanding documents in a civil lawsuit, failure to comply with the rules is fatal. Document production in BC Supreme Court is governed by Supreme Court Civil Rule 7-1(10), 7-1(11), and 7-1(12) and by Supreme Court Family Rule 9-1(7), […]

Accident Claims in BC: What you need to know about the new changes
May 1, 2019

Accident Claims in BC: What you need to know about the new changes On April 1, 2019, the BC government made changes to ICBC accident claims in the province. The largest change is the limitation of “minor injuries” to $5,500 and giving the Civil Resolution Tribunal exclusive power to hear claims for damages from motor […]

BC Government makes changes to rules around expert evidence: the goodfirm explains
February 19, 2019

In an effort to rein in ICBC’s ballooning costs, the government recently made sweeping changes to the rules of expert evidence. Experts and expert reports are used to address the issue of damages that a plaintiff has suffered — such as wage loss, future wage loss and future care — that can be used by each side […]

Claiming Future loss of income earning capacity – Vancouver Personal Injury Lawyers
November 30, 2018

Vancouver personal injury lawyers can assist you with your future loss of income earning capacity claim. Facts A recent decision, Young v. Shao, 2018 BCSC 2017, is a good reminder of how to advance your claim for future loss of earning capacity. Said claim is determined by comparing the likely future of your working life […]

In a recent motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $2,095,000 in damages of which $1,600,000 was for loss of future income-earning capacity!
June 21, 2018

Did you sustain injuries following a motor vehicle accident? Are you unable to maintain your previously held position? Do you have a claim for loss of future income-earning capacity?  The Goodfirm lawyers can help you recover the compensation that you are entitled to. A recent Supreme Court decision, Murphy v. Hofer, 2018 BCSC 869, shows […]

How will the changes to ICBC impact your personal injury claims?
April 26, 2018

If you, or your family and friends, were injured in a motor vehicle accident, you should be aware that the government of British Columbia is in the process of making significant changes to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). While the amendments will come into force on April 1, 2019, some provisions will be […]

Supreme Court Finds Defective Sandwich Suit Full of Bologna
June 30, 2017

A woman who claimed psychological injuries from a defective subway sandwich had her case dismissed. Ms. Chow was dining at a Subway location in Victoria when she noticed what appeared to be a small amount of blood on the bun and wrapping paper. She sued for mental distress and shock. Unfortunately, she sued the wrong […]

Rear End Collisions and Liability: Who is at fault?
May 25, 2017

The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently revisited liability in rear end collisions. In Gibson v. Matthies, 2017 BCSC 839, a plaintiff was injured when he drove his motorcycle into the back of the defendant’s red truck while driving in Mission, BC. The injured driver claimed the defendant stopped without warning. The court was left […]

Top Court Clarifies Standard of Proof for Past and Future Loss of Income
May 18, 2017

When assessing loss of past income and loss of future income in personal injury cases, the courts are called upon to determine the likelihood of hypothetical events. In Grewal v. Naumann, 2017 BCCA 158, the Court of Appeal clarified the law in BC with respect to the standard of proof for hypothetical events, past or […]

Car Accident Victim Seeks Documents from Parks Canada
May 5, 2017

In Lindgren (Guardian ad litem of) v. Parks Canada Agency, 2017 BCSC 721, an injured infant brought a claim after being injured when another car lost control on the icy road and crossed into her family’s car on the trans-Canada highway. The plaintiff named Parks Canada Agency as a defendant for failing to maintain the […]

And the Oscar Goes To…….Not this Plaintiff!
April 27, 2017

In Dahl v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2017 BCSC 629 a women filed a claim against Translink and Coast Mountain Bus Company for injuries she claims she received during a minor fall while riding the bus. Ms. D claimed for a host of injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injury, memory loss, problems with […]

Negligent Building Owner Liable for Provincial Health Costs
April 21, 2017

Under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act SBC 2008 c. 27, the government can require anyone who injures someone else to reimburse the Province for the cost of their medical treatment. This does not apply to injuries from a car accident, or in the course of employment. In British Columbia v. Tekavec, 2017 BCSC 613, […]

Uninsured Driver Ordered to Pay up for Injuries
March 23, 2017

In Dizon v. Losier, 2017 BCSC 431, a plaintiff was injured after being rear-ended by the defendant. The accident occurred at an intersection with 2 left turning lanes and the plaintiff was attempting to make a left turn. While attempting to make the left turn the light changed to amber and the plaintiff, not believing […]

Dangerous Drunk Driver Lands Pub in Hot Water
March 16, 2017

In Widdowson v. Rockwell, 2017 BCSC 385, a plaintiff was injured walking home from work  when he was struck by a heavily intoxicated driver. Prior to the accident, the defendant stopped at Cambie Malone’s bar for drinks where he consumed liquor. He then stopped briefly at his house before continuing on.  He was arrested at the […]

Prior Testimony Kills Plaintiff’s Credibility at Trial
March 10, 2017

In Ross v. Andrews, 2017 BCSC 338, a plaintiff was ordered to pay double costs to ICBC after failing to win in his trial. He was injured in a car accident in Surrey in 2011. After a 15 day trial, a jury determined that the plaintiff had not received any injuries in the accident. Prior […]

City Found Liable for Trip and Fall on Broken Sign
March 2, 2017

In Binette v. Salmon Arm (City), 2017 BCSC 302, a women brought a suit against the city of Salmon Arm after she tripped on a metal traffic sign that was poking out the sidewalk. A crosswalk sign had been severed from its base and had remained in the sidewalk. It was later repaired sometime after […]

ICBC Hit with Double Costs After Refusing Reasonable Offer to Settle
February 23, 2017

In Risling v. Riches-Glazema, 2017 BCSC 252, Ms. R was involved in a car accident and was awarded $622,500 at trial in Supreme Court. Prior to the trial, her counsel hade made an offer to settle with ICBC for $315,000 plus costs and disbursements under Supreme Court Rule 9-1. At a hearing for costs, she […]

Car Accident Victim Wins Victory in Court
February 9, 2017

In Kodelja v. Johal, 2017 BCSC 164  a grade 3 teacher injured in a car accident was awarded $266,545.88 at trial for her injuries. Ms. K was driving southbound on Oak Street when a driver headed in the opposite direction attempted to make a left hand turn. The right side of her car hit the […]

Go to top