3 total
Successful defendant awarded $8,300 costs deductible from settlement payment.
Following the dismissal of a motion to set aside a settlement and release, the court addressed the issue of costs.
One defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, while other defendants declined to pursue costs.
The self-represented plaintiff opposed the request, largely attempting to reargue the underlying motion and alleging unethical conduct by opposing counsel.
The court applied the reasonableness principle under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found the requested amount reasonable.
Costs of $8,300 all-inclusive were awarded to the defendant and ordered deductible from settlement funds otherwise payable to the plaintiff.
Appeal dismissed; whether a highway median constitutes an untravelled portion requires a trial.
The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.
The municipality argued the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming the vehicle collided with a pole on an 'untravelled portion of a highway' (a median).
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that determining whether the median was an untravelled portion of the highway required a trial to fully appreciate the evidence regarding reasonably foreseeable vehicular and pedestrian use.
Settlement release upheld; plaintiff failed to prove incapacity or unconscionability.
The self-represented plaintiff moved to set aside a full and final release executed as part of a settlement agreement resolving claims arising from an alleged water and sewage leak following a cable installation.
The plaintiff argued that the settlement, reached during discovery negotiations for $80,000, should be rescinded because she was physically disabled, in pain, and unable to obtain legal advice at the time of signing.
The defendants opposed and sought judgment enforcing the settlement.
The court held that lack of independent legal advice alone is not a basis to invalidate a settlement and found no evidence of incapacity, coercion, or unconscionability.
The settlement negotiations were conducted over several hours with offers and counteroffers initiated by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff acknowledged understanding the release when signing it.
The court concluded the release was binding and enforced the settlement.
