The High Court had to asstain the existence of the confidentiality clause in court: the Court of Justice conducted the test in the Birch/case. Union of Taxation Employees, Local 70030 (2008), 93 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.) to find that a provision for forfeiture is unacceptable. This test contains a two-part analysis – “a finding of unequal bargaining power and the realization that the terms of an agreement have a high degree of injustice.” After holding that the confidentiality clause was considered an intermediate clause, the Court considered whether Mr. Steels` appeal constituted a breach of the refusal. The Court determined whether a sensible person had shown Mr. Steels “clearly intending to abandon the treaty and reject it entirely.” That was not the case here. The offence did not cause commercial harm to DFK and the risk of undeserved impersonator claims was low. In any event, anyone who knew that Mr. Steels and DFK were in a dispute could have concluded that there had been a transaction without breaching the confidentiality clause. DFK suspended the payment of the weekly compensation on the grounds that Mr.
Steels had breached COT3 and was therefore released from the bargain. Mr. Steels asked the District Court to enforce COT3. DFK responded by asking it to explain that the breach of the confidentiality clause meant that the remaining transaction funds would no longer be payable. Finally something that has nothing to do with COVID-19! In a recent high court case between Duchy Farm Kennels Ltd/Steels, an employee violated the confidentiality rules of his comparative agreement (COT3) reconciled with CASA by informing a former colleague of the terms of the transaction, including the total amount and rates. The Supreme Court held that this offence did not allow the employer to pay the remaining transaction amounts set out in the agreement. Although there was no evidence before the arbitrator of prejudice suffered by The Globe and Mail as a result of Wong`s injury, the Arbitrator noted the difficulty in quantifying the damages resulting from the disclosure of information that needed to be treated confidentially and stated that such damage was “immaterial or easily quantifiable”. The Tribunal recognized that while the lump sum at issue is unlikely to be related to an actual loss of The Globe and Mail, it is not unacceptable for The Globe and the Post To recover the money. The worker, Mr. Steels, settled a labour dispute with his former employer, Duchy Farms Kennels Ltd (DFK), in exchange for compensation of $15,500 in 47 weekly installments.