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.  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. .