Background: Bryce J. Casavant was dismissed from his position as a conservation officer after refusing to euthanize two bear cubs, leading to his transfer within the BC Public Service. His union filed grievances, resulting in a settlement agreement before arbitration was completed. Casavant later sought to reopen the matter, claiming his dismissal should have been handled under the Police Act.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

• Casavant’s Position: Argued that his dismissal was unlawful and the settlement agreement was void. He sought declarations that his dismissal was void ab initio, the settlement agreement had no force, and he was entitled to all emoluments from his dismissal date.
• Respondents’ Position: Asserted the settlement agreement was binding and practical to uphold given the history and actions taken by all parties.
• Court’s Analysis: The Court examined whether the judge erred in dismissing the petition and found the settlement agreement binding. The judge did not err in exercising discretion to decline remedies sought by Casavant.

Conclusion: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the settlement agreement and finding no error in the judge’s discretion. The settlement agreement had been acted upon by all parties, making it impractical to unwind.

Costs/Award: The parties were directed to bear their own costs, reflecting the procedural complexities and mutual actions taken under the settlement agreement.