This brief of law was created within the broader context of the 2014 contention by the Corporation of Catholic Entities Party to the Indian Residential School Settlement (CCEPIRSS) that it had reached a new settlement agreement with Canada regarding Indian Residential Schools. CCEPIRSS asserted it had come to the agreement during negotiations over Canada’s 2013 Request for Direction (RFD #1), in which Canada questioned CCEPIRSS’ deduction of its legal fees from its financial payments under the original Settlement Agreement (2006). When Canada disagreed with CCEPIRSS’ assertion that a new agreement had been reached, CCEPIRSS filed its own Request for Directions (RFD #2). The brief of law was submitted by James S. Ehmann, Q.C. on behalf of CCEPIRSS and the Catholic Entities to support the Request for Directions (RFD #2) submitted by CCEPIRSS on November 18, 2014. CCEPIRSS’ Request sought guidance from the Court on whether or not the Attorney General of Canada and CCEPIRSS had reached a new settlement agreement during discussions following the initial Request for Directions.

The brief includes the following sections:
A. BACKGROUND
B. ISSUES
C. ARGUMENT: Does this Honourable Court have the jurisdiction to enforce a negotiated agreement by summary proceedings in Chambers?; What evidence is properly considered by this Honourable Court to determine if an agreement has been constituted?; Can the parties to the action be bound by agreement that was negotiated between their legal counsel?; What are the applicable legal principles to determine if an agreement has been constituted?; Did the parties have a meeting of the minds on all essential terms?; Was the agreement conditional on the execution of formal documents?
D. CONCLUSION
E. RELIEF REQUESTED
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES: Jurisprudence; Legislation