The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce acceptance of a Rule 49 offer to settle made by the defendants in litigation arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.
The defendants argued the offer was not a Rule 49 offer, lacked an essential term, and that it would be unjust to enforce it due to new expert evidence and a change in counsel.
The court found that the offer complied with Rule 49, was capable of acceptance, and the presumption that Rule 49 applied was not rebutted.
The court also determined that it was not one of those rare cases where it would be unjust to enforce the settlement, emphasizing that changes in case strength or counsel's unawareness do not typically justify non-enforcement.
The motion was granted, and judgment was issued in favour of the plaintiffs.