The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce signed Minutes of Settlement reached shortly before a scheduled family property trial concerning alleged beneficial ownership of two residential condominiums.
The defendants argued the action should proceed because they were rushed, distressed, and did not understand the terms.
The court found a binding settlement had been reached on all essential terms, preferred the evidence of former defence counsel over the defendants' evidence, and held that subjective after-the-fact misunderstanding did not displace the objective meaning of the written agreement.
The court further held that this was not one of the rare cases where compelling circumstances made enforcement contrary to the interests of justice.
Judgment was ordered in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.
