The applicant sought to enforce an alleged settlement by accepting an offer contained in the respondent’s settlement conference brief more than two years after it was initially rejected.
The court held that offers contained in settlement conference briefs are not Rule 18 offers under the Family Law Rules but are governed by the law of contract, informed by the Family Law Rules, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Although such offers may become binding contracts upon acceptance, they may also be implicitly withdrawn by subsequent written offers that are less favourable to the opposing party.
The court found that later settlement proposals reducing the applicant’s share constituted implicit withdrawal of the earlier offer.
Accordingly, the purported acceptance did not create a binding agreement enforceable by the court.
