David Quayat

The defendant brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The claim arose from assigned accounts receivable after two U.S. corporations defaulted on credit facilities granted by the plaintiff bank.

The defendant argued the pleading improperly relied on Virginia law and lacked privity of contract under Ontario law.

The court held that, properly understood, the claim was simply an action on assigned debts owed by the defendant to the assignor companies, with foreign law relevant only to the factual basis of the assignment.

As it was not plain and obvious that the claim could not succeed, the motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendants moved to enforce Minutes of Settlement reached at a civil pre‑trial requiring payment of $100,000 and execution of a release.

The plaintiffs argued the settlement was not binding because the wording of the release had not been finalized and alleged their former solicitor lacked authority and exerted undue influence.

The court held that a settlement agreement is a binding contract once essential terms are agreed, and the requirement for a release does not prevent formation of a binding agreement.

The court also reaffirmed that a solicitor of record has ostensible authority to bind clients in settlement absent clear notice to the contrary.

The motion was granted and the settlement enforced, with the plaintiffs ordered to deliver the executed release and the defendants to pay the settlement funds.

The plaintiff moved to dismiss the action against a settling defendant following a partial settlement in a copyright and passing off action between two artists and an art gallery.

The non-settling defendant opposed dismissal unless the court imposed a term requiring the plaintiff to undertake damages for alleged interference with the defendant’s contractual relationship with the gallery.

The court held that partial settlements must be reviewed for fairness and potential prejudice to non-settling defendants, even if formal approval is not required.

On the evidence, the settlement term restricting the gallery from selling certain works did not prejudice the non-settling defendant because the gallery had already ceased selling those works prior to the settlement due to the allegations in the litigation.

The court dismissed the action against the settling defendant and refused to impose the undertaking sought by the non-settling defendant.