The respondent struck a municipal employee while driving and later settled a separate action against the municipality by signing a broad release.
Years after executing the release, the respondent brought a third party claim for contribution or indemnity against the municipality in the action commenced by the injured employee.
The Court held there is no special interpretive rule that applies to releases; they are contracts subject to the general principles of contractual interpretation set out in Sattva.
The Blackmore Rule, which limited general words in a release to what was specially in the contemplation of the parties, has been overtaken by Sattva and should no longer be referred to.
The application judge made no reviewable error, and his order staying the third party claim was reinstated.
