She signed to resign, then fought in court to undo it
A long-serving educational assistant who agreed to resign rather than be fired could not later undo the deal she signed, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick ruled on May 28, 2026, with Justice Quigg finding that the release in her resignation agreement was valid and barred her claim.
Terrilee Jill Black, the appellant in Black v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE Local 2745, had spent more than 20 years as an educational assistant with the Anglophone East School District, where CUPE Local 2745 served as her bargaining agent. Over the years, complaints were made about Black’s conduct.
According to the decision, matters came to a head on May 4, 2021. Following a founded harassment complaint, which was not the first, the District called a meeting to discuss whether to terminate her. Black said she would rather resign than be fired.
CUPE's president walked her through her options, either challenging a termination through the grievance process or negotiating a resignation. The court found those choices were discussed several times between May 4 and May 18, with the union negotiating terms that covered her retirement allowance, pension, and access to Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan benefits.
Worker helped write resignation clause
On May 18, 2021, Black signed the agreement that ended her employment, letting her keep her retirement allowance and pension. Before signing, she asked that it state her resignation was "due to disability" to support her Canada Pension Plan application, and that wording was added.
The agreement also contained a release. It freed the union from any claim that it had failed in its duty of fair representation and said the document could later be raised as a complete bar to such a proceeding. Black signed it and later sued, alleging she had been coerced, that CUPE had breached that duty, and that she was in mental distress when she signed.
CUPE asked for summary judgment, pointing to the release. The motion judge found it clear, found that Black had understood it and signed it voluntarily, and noted that no medical evidence had been filed to show she lacked capacity. The action was dismissed with costs. Representing herself on appeal, Black also sought to introduce fresh evidence arguing her trial lawyer had been ineffective, but the panel found it did not meet the test for admission.
Why the deal stuck
The Court of Appeal was unconvinced, and it was clear about its limits. As Justice Quigg noted, the appeal did not decide the merits of Black's exit or whether she had been constructively dismissed, a claim that could only have been brought against the District rather than the union; the only questions were whether the release barred her claim against CUPE and whether anything required a trial. On that ground, the court found Black had repeatedly confirmed she wanted to resign, had discussed her pension and benefits, had reviewed the document with union representatives, and had asked for the disability wording herself, all of which, it said, pointed to a deliberate and informed choice.
On the question of pressure, the court accepted that the union had warned Black that refusing to resign could lead to termination, lost benefits, and repayment of administrative leave. But Justice Quigg described those consequences as "factual realities, not additional obligations imposed by the Agreement."
Black's argument that the deal was unconscionable also failed, because she had been represented by her bargaining agent and had helped shape the terms, leaving the court to find no inequality of bargaining power. Dismissing the appeal with costs of $2,500, the court concluded that "assertions of coercion or incapacity without evidence cannot invalidate a release."
See Black c. Section locale 2745 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, 2026 NBCA 55
