The defendants successfully brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a personal injury action.
Webber commenced two separate actions seeking damages arising from a slip and fall accident and motor vehicle accident respectively. Webber and the defendants from the two personal injury actions participated in a joint settlement conference with a view to resolving both claims.
Following a successful settlement, Boutilier and Dartmouth Central Plumbing and Heating (the defendants in the motor vehicle claim) forwarded a release, consent dismissal order, and settlement funds to Webber’s counsel. The release contained a confidentiality clause, confirming that the terms of the settlement were confidential and that Webber would be liable for repayment of the settlement funds if she was found in violation of the confidentiality clause. The release also contained a clause that Webber would indemnify and save harmless Boutilier and Dartmouth Central Plumbing and Heating from any subrogation claims.
Webber’s counsel returned the signed release with an “X” marked through the confidentiality and indemnification clauses. Those paragraphs were also initialed by Webber and her counsel. In response, counsel for Boutilier and Dartmouth Central Plumbing and Heating argued that the settlement agreement was inclusive of all claims, including existing and future subrogation claims, such as potential claims by the Department of Health under the Health Services and Insurance Act, RSNS 1989, c 197.
The Court found that the settlement reached at the settlement conference was “full and final”, and included a clear understanding that all matters were settled, including any subrogation claims. The all-inclusive basis of the settlement was an essential term of the agreement and Webber must release Boutilier and Dartmouth Central Plumbing and Heating from all claims relating to her action, including any potential subrogation claims.
Unfortunately, disputes will sometimes arise following a settlement agreement. Although this cannot always be avoided, parties can take precautions to ensure that there is a common understanding of the terms involved. Such precautions may include the use of minutes of settlement or a confirming letter setting out the terms of the agreement.
2019 brought several notable cases impacting employment and labour law. We have put together a brief summary of 10 Canadian decisions we believe employers should be aware of as we head into 2020. 1. Ruston v Keddco MFG (2011) Ltd, 2019 ONCA 125 Ontario Court of Appeal provides an important lesson that overly aggressive tactics […]
read moreA recent decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mifflin v North Atlantic Refining Limited, 2017 NLTD(G) 140, demonstrates that Employers may be held to a settlement agreement if a consensus is reached on its essential terms, despite there being a continuance of a dispute as to its non-essential terms.
read moreIn this case, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the validity and enforceability of a full and final release involving two unrepresented individuals.
read more
