It may indeed be the case that the complainant considered that the draft documents contained objectionable terms or terms that were too broad or too restrictive to accurately reflect the agreed settlement. It is equally possible that the complainant felt that he was being asked to contract out of his future human rights, which clearly would not be a lawful or enforceable term of any settlement document, as outlined in Chow v. Mobile Oil Canada.[9] He may have felt that the confidentiality provisions were overly restrictive.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.