The conversion of the transaction into a court order is not the only mechanism available for the implementation of the settlement protocol against an in violation party. Olivieri/Sherman, a 2007 Ontario Court of Appeal decision, provides that a transaction contract is a contract and, as such, subject to general contract laws. As long as the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of the closing of the transaction (a), the parties had a mutual intention to enter into a legally binding contract; and b) has reached agreement on all the essential terms of the transaction, the Tribunal will find that there is a valid contract between the parties. Since there is a valid contract between the parties, general remedies for infringement are available if one of the parties refuses to comply with the transaction. These remedies include damages in the event that the transaction was a cash bonus or a specific benefit in the event that the transaction was a specific act such as the restitution of property. Almost immediately after the conclusion of the transaction and implementation between the parties, Professor Mehta posted on Twitter: Although it is impossible to guarantee the confidentiality of an agreement, a properly drafted transaction agreement is an important step in promoting it. Acadia`s decision offers employers some lessons on what should be included in the transaction agreements. While the guarantee of confidentiality is a no-brainer, proper confidentiality can be difficult. When developing appropriate confidentiality conditions, consider who may be aware of the dispute and how communications will be handled in the future. Also install a waiting period for payment. I hope that such a waiting period could lead to a colder head start after an agreement and to create incentives for compliance with the agreement. Finally, let the transaction agreement explain the consequences of an infringement in order to limit any uncertainty about the solution of this problem.
The judge rejected the interpretation of remedy`s agreement. He found that the former employee had not consented to a complete mediating scan. However, the appeal judge rejected the former employee`s argument that Remedy had rejected the transaction contract. The judge stated: ”It cannot be said that [Remedys`s] position was so manifestly inappropriate that it attests to an insistence on conditions which, in the circumstances, could not reasonably be implied. The judge ruled on the execution of the transaction on the terms set by the former employee.