Dispute over the terms of a Settlement Agreement

What did the parties mean? In Kwantlen Polytechnic University and Kwantlen Faculty Assn. (Settlement Agreement Dispute), 2026 CarswellBC 703, 2026 CanLII 21532, 2026 C.L.A.S. 158, Arbitrator Noonan reviewed the meaning behind a January 2025 Settlement Agreement.

The agreement resolved six grievances relating to NRI faculty contracts.  At issue was what the parties meant when they agreed that the University would “continue to provide the Union with access to a listing of all current and future course offerings, including class times and the instructor or “TBA” for each section, to the extent published by the Employer as at that date.”  

To satisfy this obligation, the Employer directed the Union to its publicly accessible “Browse Classes” website, listing course details but not instructor status. The Union believed the agreement enabled the Union to monitor the University's use of NR1 contracts effectively, and that “listing” required an exportable dataset, not merely a website.

Arbitrator Noonan dismissed the grievance. He found the language of the Agreement to be unambiguous. The University’s obligation was to provide “access to a listing,” and the Browse Classes website was, on the ordinary meaning of the word, “a listing” of the course offerings specified in the Agreement. The Arbitrator declined to rewrite or expand an unambiguous agreement to which the parties had agreed.

What do you need to know?

While an arbitrator may consider the purpose of an agreement to resolve ambiguity, when the language of a settlement agreement is clear, an arbitrator will enforce the words used by the parties. Institutions should draft settlement agreements carefully, since the language chosen at settlement will apply in any future dispute.