Offices in Ottawa and Perth
(613) 722-1500

CONTACT US (613) 722-1500

The Effect of Mistake on the Enforceability of Minutes of Settlement

The Effect of Mistake on the Enforceability of Minutes of Settlement

By:

Posted February 18, 2021

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Kearns v Canadian Tire Corporation Limited examined when a settlement is enforceable in cases of mistake, specifically when a party executed Minutes of Settlement with a mistaken understanding of the material facts.

Background

The litigation arose out of the termination of the Plaintiff’s employment by Canadian Tire. Canadian Tire made some significant termination-related payments to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff ultimately commenced an action for wrongful dismissal seeking additional damages.

Mediation took place in the context of the litigation, during which the matter settled and Minutes of Settlement were executed. Counsel for Canadian Tire drafted the Minutes of Settlement which provided that Canadian Tire would pay the Plaintiff $150,000. The Plaintiff’s lawyer requested that the Minutes of Settlement include language that the $150,000 would be in addition to amounts already paid. Canadian Tire agreed and that language was included in the Minutes of Settlement.

It was subsequently discovered that the representatives of Canadian Tire who attended the mediation were not aware of the earlier termination-related payments to the Plaintiff, which were argued to have been made in error, and upon discovery of them, they took the position that those payments should be deducted from the settlement amount of $150,000.

The Motion Judge’s Decision

The Plaintiff brought a motion to enforce the Minutes of Settlement for the payment of the full amount under the Minutes of Settlement. Canadian Tire brought a cross-motion seeking to compel the Plaintiff to answer questions about the legal advice he received in respect of the previous payments, and to examine the Plaintiff’s lawyer.

The Motion judge found that there was no ambiguity in the written terms of the Minutes of Settlement, that there was not an evidentiary basis on which to draw an inference that the Plaintiff knew that Canadian Tire was mistaken when it signed the Minutes of Settlement, and there was no basis for a finding of fraud.

The Motion Judge declined to exercise his discretion to refuse to enforce the Minutes of Settlement and granted the Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the Minutes of Settlement, thereby awarding him the $150,000 without deduction for previous payments. Canadian Tire’s cross-motion was dismissed.

The Appeal

Canadian Tire subsequently appealed the Motion Judge’s decision to the Court of Appeal.

On appeal, among other things, Canadian Tire argued that the Minutes of Settlement arose by a mistake, and there was a good faith duty on the Plaintiff and his lawyer to disclose the receipt of those payments.

The Court of Appeal was not persuaded by those arguments, noting that certain factors prevented it accepting Canadian Tire’s argument that the Minutes of Settlement arose from a unilateral mistake, including that others in the company had known about the payments.

The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed Canadian Tire’s appeal, finding that there was no reversible error in the Motion Judge’s analysis and findings.

Takeaways

This decision highlights the importance of detail and specificity in documents such as Minutes of Settlement. As the Court of Appeal noted in the decision, “this litigation could have been avoided through the simple drafting device of quantifying in the Minutes the amounts already paid”.

This decision also reinforces that when parties enter into Minutes of Settlement they should take care to ensure they have a complete and correct understanding of the material facts and that the terms of settlement corresponds with their understanding and intention to be bound.  Both the reasons and results in Kearns suggest that even where they acted under mistake, they may not be able to resile from the settlement.

This blog post was written by Alexander Bissonnette, a member of the Commercial Litigation team.  He can be reached at 613-369-0358 or at Alexander.Bissonnette@mannlawyers.com.

More Resources

Blog |
Practice Management

By: 

Posted January 30, 2023

“If you don’t know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.”  Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged It is what it is[...]
Blog |
Family Law

By: 

Posted January 26, 2023

You have made the decision to separate from your partner. Now what? You have a house, a pension, maybe you have children, debts, and an[...]
Blog |
Environmental Law

By: 

Posted January 24, 2023

The Ontario government has moved ahead with changes to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System in support of Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. [...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted January 17, 2023

While each of these cases could have its own blog post, we have decided to create a list of important cases for employers to be[...]
Blog |
Employment, Labour, and Human Rights

By: 

Posted January 10, 2023

Constructive Dismissal is an incredibly important protection for Ontario employees – one that is often used successfully to enforce employment rights. If you ask members[...]
Blog |
Estate Litigation, Wills, Trusts and Estates

By: 

Posted January 4, 2023

Executing powers of attorney is an important component of estate planning and allows individuals to decide who will manage their affairs should they become incapable[...]

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.