Brian R. Law

The defendants moved for judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure based on the plaintiffs’ accepted offer to settle.

The plaintiffs had made a written offer prior to trial that remained open until one minute after the commencement of trial, and the defendants accepted the offer months later after the trial had been adjourned.

The responding parties argued the court should exercise its discretion not to enforce the settlement because significant additional litigation expenses had been incurred after the adjournment.

The court held that discretion to refuse judgment on an accepted offer should be exercised only in rare circumstances and that the facts did not justify departing from the policy favouring enforcement of settlements.

Judgment was therefore granted in accordance with the accepted offer.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning whether a contract existed between the parties, the plaintiff’s claims were entirely dismissed and the defendants’ counterclaim was also dismissed with no evidence led.

The court was required to determine the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $355,000, arguing that the plaintiff’s conduct increased the complexity of the proceedings and relying on several settlement offers.

The court found the Rule 49 consequences were not triggered but considered the final offer in assessing reasonable costs.

Certain expert report disbursements were disallowed, and the court ultimately fixed the defendants’ costs at $255,000 and the plaintiff’s costs at $25,000.

The plaintiff logistics company sued the defendants for breach of an alleged exclusive four‑year transportation and logistics services contract, seeking damages for lost business after the defendants used other carriers.

The court found that the purported agreement lacked essential elements of a binding contract, including certainty as to the parties, period, and price, and contained no ascertainable pricing formula.

The court also held that the employee who signed the document on behalf of the defendants lacked actual, apparent, or ostensible authority to bind them.

The agreement was further unenforceable for lack of consideration and uncertainty, and ambiguities were construed against the plaintiff under the contra proferentem rule.

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and the defendants’ counterclaim was also dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.