Verbal Human Rights Settlements May Be Final – Even If Self Rep Gets Lawyer After

In Complainant v. Respondent, 2025 AHRC 60, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal addressed a situation where a party verbally agrees to settle a case but subsequently attempts to withdraw from the agreement. The decision serves as a clear reminder that a settlement cannot simply be abandoned because one later believes they could have negotiated better terms.

The case also highlights the occurrence of “settlement remorse,” where parties reconsider their position after consulting legal counsel or conducting further research following an agreement. The Commission’s firm stance on the enforceability of settlements provides important guidance for all parties involved in human rights disputes.

Facts

The key facts of the case are as follows:

• A worker filed a human rights complaint claiming his employer discriminated against him because of his physical disability.
• The parties went to a Tribunal Dispute Resolution (“TDR”) session in March 2025, where they reached a verbal settlement for $2,000.
• Four days later, the employer sent over the formal settlement paperwork, which included the standard release provisions.
• The complainant had second thoughts. He refused to sign the documents and requested a full hearing instead.
• His reasons were threefold: a lawyer told him the settlement was too low, he objected to the release (saying it wasn’t discussed), and he believed the employer deliberately delayed sending the paperwork.
• The employer pushed back, insisting there was a binding agreement, and sought $3,000 in legal costs.

Analysis / Conclusion

The Commissioner ultimately did not accept the complainant’s submissions and provided clarification on the nature and role of settlements in the context of human rights proceedings.

Handshake deals count: The Commissioner was crystal clear that you don’t need signatures to make a settlement binding.  If there is a “meeting of the minds” between the parties, then there is a binding agreement, whether it’s written down or not.

Buyer’s remorse isn’t a legal defense: The Commissioner outlined that getting legal advice after the fact – even advice that you settled too cheap – does not provide a way to back out of the agreement. The Commissioner noted that “while a party may subsequently regret entering into a settlement or hope for a more favourable result, that does not void a validly reached agreement.”

Legal advice has its place, but timing matters: The Commissioner makes an interesting distinction here, noting post-settlement legal advice should be used to make sure the written agreement matches what was discussed, not to reopen negotiations. It is a matter of quality control, rather than buyer’s remorse.

Standard terms are to be anticipated: As for the release that concerned the complainant, the Commissioner found it to be standard. It noted that parties are advised during the TDR process to expect such terms in the context of settlement agreements.

Four days isn’t a delay: The complainant’s claim that the employer caused undue delay by taking four business days to draft the settlement documents did not resonate with the Commissioner. It found the timeline reasonable and not unusual in the context of settlement discussions.

Costs are possible, but not automatic: While the Commissioner agreed that the complainant’s conduct was “improper,” it declined to award the $3,000 in costs sought by the employer. The Commissioner appeared to extend some leniency given the complainant was self-represented but made it clear that similar behavior could warrant cost orders in future cases.

My Take

This decision provides several key takeaways and important reminders for both employers and employees:

1. Treat TDR seriously: participants should not attend TDR sessions with the impression that any agreement reached can easily be revisited later. This decision underscores that once parties reach a verbal settlement – it is generally considered binding. Parties should approach these discussions with the same care and consideration they would give to any formal agreement.
2. Get legal advice early, not late: Finalizing a settlement before consulting legal counsel can result in missed opportunities or undervalued claims. Once a settlement is reached, it may be too late to revisit the terms. Legal advice should be obtained before any agreement is made, or in this case, before the TDR, to ensure informed decision-making.
3. Know what you’re signing up for: Human rights settlements almost always include broad release language. That’s not a surprise or a trick – it’s standard practice. If you don’t understand what that means, ask before you agree.
4. Self-represented parties should be cautious: While this complainant avoided a costs award, that was likely because he didn’t have a lawyer when he entered the agreement he later tried to get out of. Parties with representation when they enter a verbal agreement, who later try to pull this kind of move might not be so lucky.

This case serves as an important reminder that verbal settlement negotiations carry real and binding consequences. It is best that parties take the time to carefully consider any offer before accepting it, ensuring they fully understand the terms to which they are agreeing. Once an agreement is made, the law expects parties to honour their commitments, and such decisions reinforce the principle that individuals are held accountable to their word.

Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession.  These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice.  If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.

Bow River Law is a team of knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employment lawyers handling employment law, human rights (discrimination) and labour law matters.  Bow River Law is based in Calgary but we are Alberta’s Workforce Lawyers.