B. Yellin

Following a motion concerning whether an accepted settlement offer constituted an enforceable settlement in estate litigation, the court had previously determined that a binding settlement existed.

The estate trustee successfully resisted the beneficiary’s motion.

On the subsequent costs endorsement, the court considered the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the trustee sought substantial indemnity costs, the court held that the circumstances did not justify such an award, particularly in the absence of a Rule 49 offer.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the estate trustee, subject to reductions reflecting excessive time entries and the trustee’s late disclosure of certain estate assets.

In an estate dispute between brothers arising from a contested passing of accounts, the estate trustee moved under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement based on the beneficiary’s offer to settle.

The court considered whether the offer remained open for acceptance and whether enforcement would create an injustice.

It held that the hearing of the application had not commenced on earlier procedural attendances and that the offer, which had not been withdrawn in writing, remained open when accepted.

Applying contract principles and appellate guidance on enforcing settlements, the court found the offer clear and unequivocal and rejected arguments that a mistaken assumption about its expiry or incomplete disclosure justified non‑enforcement.

The court concluded there was a binding settlement and granted judgment enforcing the accepted offer.