office building

Enforcing Settlement Agreement Ontario

In deciding whether the parties had reached an agreement, the Tribunal had to find that the parties intended to enter into a legally binding contract and that there had been agreement on all the essential terms of the transaction agreement. Since the parties were represented in the agreement by counsel and the respondent took the above position, the court considered Scherer v. Paletta[4] that a lawyer`s right to settle and compromise a client`s position is a well-regulated right. The court checked the respondent`s consent to his counsel and saw that there was nothing in the minutes, indicating that his lawyer`s authority to accept the transaction was limited in any way, and if the respondent believed that he was not adequately represented in the negotiations, he may have other remedies against his lawyer. , but such a conviction does not lead to the conclusion that no agreement has been reached. Our judicial system is rightly settled. Legal resources are scarce and litigation is costly. It should come as no surprise, then, that if the parties agree to resolve a complaint, there will be no turning back. This is true, whether the comparison is made in a formal document or obtained by e-mail. Although the court can technically cancel the transaction at its sole discretion, the chances are slim.

Our civil justice system is rightly focused on dispute resolution. Litigation is expensive and judicial resources are scarce. It should therefore come as no surprise, therefore, that the courts have recently reaffirmed the principle that the parties cannot easily slip from settlement agreements and cannot evade the sanction of submitting a reasonable transaction proposal. Mr. Lumsden also argued that he had been forced to enter into the agreement under duress. This argument was also rejected because it was clear that Mr. Lumsden approved and confirmed the conditions of the implementation.