Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement Ontario

Let me get out of my usual soap box this month and focus on more day-to-day cases that are of interest to mediators (and lawyers) in my jurisdiction first. A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court highlights the approach a judge will take when a party challenges the applicability of their settlement agreement. In general, the courts will have little patience with the phenomenon known as “settler remorse.” This case demonstrates the need for a unification agreement. As soon as a party decides to terminate a legal action, it cannot have a change of attitude. This applies whether or not the agreement is reduced to a formal contract and whether or not the party is represented by a lawyer. Judge Schabas rejected this argument and found that by objectively examining the emails concerned, a binding agreement was reached between the parties on the essential terms of the transaction. The simple draft minutes of the agreement are a little over two pages long and in a very distant format, and the substantive provisions are in line with the essential conditions on which agreement has been reached. [7] In determining whether the parties had reached an agreement, the Tribunal had to find that the parties intended to create a legally binding contract and that there was agreement on all the essential terms of the settlement agreement. .

. .