Christine Marie Kucey

The moving party, a student who sued his college over grades, sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal an order enforcing a $4,000 settlement agreement.

The motion was brought nearly a year after the original decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the delay was unreasonable and unexplained, the proposed appeal lacked merit, and the underlying claim was likely frivolous.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce minutes of settlement for $4,000, which the plaintiff had signed but later sought to resile from, claiming a mistake regarding included costs and duress.

The court applied the objective test for contract existence, finding a clear and unequivocal agreement on all essential terms.

The court also found no compelling circumstances or clear risk of injustice to set aside the settlement, emphasizing the strong presumption in favour of settlement finality.

The motion was granted, enforcing the settlement and dismissing the plaintiff's claim, with costs awarded to the defendants.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a motion for summary judgment based on res judicata, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant relied on an offer to settle for a dismissal without costs and alleged the plaintiff made unproven allegations of dishonest conduct.

The court declined to award elevated costs, finding the plaintiff's response to the motion was reasonable and her allegations were relevant to the context of the motion.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $9,600.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's civil claim for the return of approximately $190,000 transferred during their relationship.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by res judicata, as the issue of the unreturned money was raised and determined in their prior family law trial regarding spousal support.

The court granted the motion, finding that both issue estoppel and cause of action estoppel applied.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to relieve against the operation of res judicata, emphasizing the importance of finality in family law proceedings and preventing duplicative litigation.