The appellant municipality appealed an interlocutory order that set aside a consent dismissal of an action and consolidated it with another ongoing action.
The parties had previously agreed to settle the action, but a dispute arose over the specific wording of the release regarding the respondent's ability to call evidence in the ongoing action.
The motion judge found the settlement was contingent on the respondent agreeing to the release terms.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error as the essential terms of the settlement had been agreed upon and the proposed release accurately reflected those terms.
The settlement was enforced and the consent dismissal reinstated.
