Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Terrilee Jill Black appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action against CUPE Local 2745, with the motion judge finding her claim was barred by a release contained in a Letter of Agreement dated May 18, 2021.
• Central to the appeal was whether the release — which relieved CUPE from any claim alleging a breach of its duty of fair representation — was valid and enforceable.
• Black alleged she was coerced into signing the Agreement and lacked mental capacity at the time, but no medical evidence was filed to support either claim.
• Procedural fairness grounds, including allegations of judicial bias, denial of a change of counsel, and refusal of an adjournment, were all rejected by the Court of Appeal.
• Her fresh evidence motion, intended to support allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, was dismissed for failing to meet the admissibility criteria established in R. v. Palmer.
• Unconscionability was the only remaining basis to challenge the release, but the Court found no inequality of bargaining power given Black's active participation in negotiations through her union representative.

Facts of the case

Terrilee Jill Black was employed for over 20 years as an Educational Assistant with the Anglophone East School District and was a member of CUPE Local 2745 throughout her employment. Over a period of years, complaints were made regarding her conduct. On May 4, 2021, following a founded harassment complaint — which was not the first — the District convened a meeting to address the possibility of terminating Black. At the meeting, a District representative advised that it was considering termination, and Black indicated she preferred to resign rather than face that outcome. Following the meeting, CUPE's president met with Black to review her options: she could either challenge her termination through the grievance process or pursue a negotiated resignation. The motion judge found these options were fully discussed with Black on several occasions between May 4 and May 18, 2021, and that she repeatedly confirmed her desire to resign.

Contractual clause at issue

On May 18, 2021, Black executed the Letter of Agreement, which provided for her resignation and allowed her to retain her retirement allowance and pension benefits. Prior to signing, she requested that the Agreement specify her resignation was "due to disability" to assist with her Canada Pension Plan application — a request that was accommodated. The Agreement also contained a release clause, which stated: "By accepting this Agreement, Terrilee Black releases the Canadian Union of Public Employees and CUPE Local 2745 against any actions involving an alleged failure of its duty of fair representation. In the event Terrilee Black would make any claim, complaint or commence any action or proceedings, this document may be raised successfully as an estoppel and complete bar to any such claim, complaint, action or proceedings." Following execution, Black commenced an action alleging she had been coerced into signing and that CUPE had breached its duty of fair representation, further asserting she was suffering from mental distress at the time of signing.

Reasoning and analysis

The Court of Appeal, per Justice Quigg (concurred in by Justices LeBlanc and Dysart), considered three principal issues: whether the hearing before the motion judge was procedurally unfair; whether the release barred Black's claim; and whether the summary judgment test was correctly applied. On procedural fairness, the Court found no evidentiary foundation for a reasonable apprehension of bias, no basis for the ineffective assistance of counsel claim given that Black was represented throughout and filed evidence and testified without interruption, and no error in the refusal to grant an adjournment, as the denial did not compromise the fairness of the proceedings or result in prejudice. Black's constructive dismissal argument was also dismissed, as it had not been pleaded in her Statement of Claim or Notice of Appeal, and in any event could only be advanced against the District, not CUPE.

On the release, the Court affirmed the motion judge's findings that the Agreement was clear and unambiguous, that its terms were explained to Black, and that she signed it voluntarily. Her active participation in the drafting process — specifically requesting the "due to disability" wording — further demonstrated an informed and deliberate choice. Although Black had attended appointments with a psychologist and physician, no medical evidence was filed to establish that she lacked capacity in May 2021, and at the summary judgment motion she confirmed under cross-examination that she understood and voluntarily executed the Agreement. The Court held that assertions of coercion or incapacity without supporting evidence cannot invalidate a release. On the question of unconscionability, the Court applied the framework from Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16, requiring both an inequality of bargaining power and a resulting improvident bargain; neither element was established, as Black was represented by her bargaining agent and actively participated in the negotiations. On summary judgment, the motion judge correctly applied Rule 22.04 and the Hryniak v. Mauldin framework, properly exercising his fact-finding powers and finding no admissible evidence capable of raising a genuine issue for trial.

Ruling and outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed Black's appeal in its entirety, finding no reviewable error in the motion judge's analysis. The release contained in the Agreement was upheld as valid, clear, and voluntarily executed, and no genuine issue requiring a trial was found to exist. CUPE Local 2745 was the successful party, and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded in its favour in the amount of $2,500.