I. Graham

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a 2018 consent order that dismissed its motion to set aside a registrar's dismissal order.

The plaintiff argued that its former counsel made an inadvertent mistake by agreeing to dismiss the motion against all defendants, rather than just the MEC defendants, and sought to continue the action against the Pace defendants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no common mistake, fraud, or misrepresentation to justify varying the consent order, which accurately reflected the fairly negotiated minutes of settlement.

The court emphasized the relative sanctity of consent orders and the strong presumption in favour of the finality of settlements.

The Judgment Creditors brought a motion within a receivership proceeding seeking a declaration that they held valid, independent unsecured debt claims against two insolvent corporations, 230 and MM, arising from a consent order and minutes of settlement.

The Receiver and a preferred shareholder opposed, arguing the claims were equity claims.

The court applied the Van Laun principle to look behind the consent order and found that the obligations to purchase the shares and pay accrued dividends contravened the solvency and cross-holding provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

Consequently, the claims were unenforceable as debt, except for the costs component, which was remitted to the Receiver for a reasonableness review.