The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta has ruled that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the City of Leduc may publicly disclose the total number of women whose harassment claims were approved and the total amount of compensation paid under a previously approved settlement.
The decision stems from a class action lawsuit launched by former employees who experienced gender discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and sexual assault while working for the City or its Fire Department.
The class action, certified in July 2023, covers “female current and former employees who worked for Leduc between 2002 and the date of certification who allege that they were subject to discrimination, sexual misconduct, or sexual assault at Leduc.”
After the settlement agreement was reached and approved by the court, eligible class members were invited to submit individual claims during a year-long period ending August 4, 2024. A significant number of women came forward and received compensation during this window.
Following the conclusion of the claims period, the plaintiffs applied to the court for permission to disclose two pieces of information: the number of successful claimants and the total compensation paid. The City of Leduc opposed the request, citing confidentiality provisions in the agreement and arguing that disclosure could jeopardize claimant anonymity due to its relatively small workforce.
Court finds confidentiality provision narrowly drawn
The court disagreed with the City’s position. It found that while the agreement imposes confidentiality obligations on the parties, their counsel, the administrator, and the assessor, it does not extend those obligations to individual claimants.
Clause 52.1 of the agreement states that “[a]ny information provided, created or obtained in the course of this settlement … will be kept confidential by the Parties.” The court emphasized that the defined term “Parties” includes only the City and the representative plaintiffs—not the claimants themselves.
“This language is clear,” the court said. “To accept the Defendant’s interpretation would require that I rewrite clause 52.1 in the face of clear language indicating that the parties did not intend that individual claimants would be bound by the provision.”
Further, the court noted that the agreement already allowed for some public disclosures. It mandated a public apology by the mayor and the release of a joint public statement upon settlement approval. “The existence of these provisions is in tension with the Defendant’s suggestion that one of the parties’ objectives … was to limit public disclosure of information about the settlement.”
No risk to claimant anonymity
The court rejected the City’s argument that releasing the requested information might allow for the identification of individual claimants. Given the large number of claims and the request to disclose only aggregate figures, “disclosing the Information would not risk identifying individual claimants.”
The plaintiffs also obtained consent from all claimants for disclosing the total number of approved claims. While they had not yet received consent for disclosing the total compensation paid, they indicated a willingness to do so. The court did not make the release of compensation figures contingent on obtaining further consent, finding instead that the disclosure was permissible under the terms of the agreement.
Settlement privilege and implied confidentiality not applicable
The City also argued that the information was protected by settlement privilege and an implied undertaking of confidentiality. The court disagreed, finding that while settlement privilege can apply to the existence and terms of a settlement, it does not prevent disclosure unless expressly agreed to.
“Settlement privilege is a rule of evidence,” the court noted, “and as such, does not prevent a party from disclosing information.” It added that the parties had the opportunity to define any confidentiality obligations in the agreement, and the terms do not extend to aggregate statistics like those the plaintiffs sought to release.
Public policy not a determining factor
The plaintiffs raised public policy arguments in favour of disclosure, including transparency, public accountability, and the need to demonstrate the extent of workplace misconduct. The court acknowledged the importance of these concerns, especially when public institutions are involved, but declined to base its decision on policy grounds.
“Allowing freestanding public policy considerations to play a role in the interpretation of class action settlement agreements would create significant uncertainty and would undermine the finality of these agreements,” the court ruled.
Nonetheless, the court permitted the disclosure on the basis that the agreement, properly interpreted, did not prohibit it.
Stay issued to allow for potential appeal
Recognizing that public disclosure could render an appeal moot, the court issued a temporary stay of its decision. If the City of Leduc files an appeal and seeks a further stay, the decision will remain paused pending the outcome of that request.
For more information, see Steele v Leduc (City), 2025 ABKB 203 (CanLII).
