Alexa Sulzenko

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to refuse enforcement, arguing it had mistakenly made a prior payment of $115,465.20 to the plaintiff which it did not know about during mediation.

The court found that the written Minutes of Settlement were clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant's mistake was unilateral.

Because there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the mistake or engaged in fraud, the court enforced the settlement and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining balance.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during cross-examination on the basis of settlement and solicitor-client privilege, and to examine the plaintiff's counsel under Rule 39.03.

The underlying dispute involved a motion to enforce a wrongful dismissal settlement where the defendant alleged a mistake of fact regarding amounts already paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not waived privilege by putting his legal advice in issue, and that examining opposing counsel was neither necessary nor highly material to justify breaching solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action on behalf of former members of a defined benefit pension plan seeking 100% of the plan's surplus.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at mediation, which included the defendants paying 100% of the surplus to plan members and an additional $350,000 inclusive of costs and interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for certification of the action as a class proceeding for the purposes of settlement.

The court found the test for certification was met and granted the motion on consent.

The defendants appealed a Master's order that struck out one of two defence neuropsychological assessments of the plaintiff.

The Master had varied his original order allowing two assessments after discovering the defendants had entered into an undisclosed settlement agreement, reasoning they were no longer adverse in interest.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law.

The court held that the defendants remained adverse in interest despite the settlement, and that adversity is not a strict prerequisite for multiple defence medicals under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act if fairness requires it.

Both assessments were permitted, but the defendants were ordered to pay full indemnity costs and fund an additional assessment for the plaintiff as a sanction for failing to disclose the agreement and breaching the examination protocol.

The plaintiffs, former residential students at Grenville Christian College, moved to certify a class action against the school, its former headmasters, and the Anglican Diocese of Ontario, alleging systemic physical and psychological abuse and religious indoctrination.

The court dismissed the action against the Diocese, finding it plain and obvious that the Diocese owed no duty of care, was not vicariously liable, and had no fiduciary relationship with the students.

The court also dismissed the certification motion against the remaining defendants, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because the common issues of systemic negligence would not significantly advance the individual claims.

Instead, the court suspended the dismissal for six months to allow the plaintiffs to propose a new litigation plan to continue the action as a group of case-managed individual actions.