Laura J. Freitag

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant opposed and brought a cross-motion to refuse enforcement, arguing it had mistakenly made a prior payment of $115,465.20 to the plaintiff which it did not know about during mediation.

The court found that the written Minutes of Settlement were clear and unambiguous, and that the defendant's mistake was unilateral.

Because there was no evidence the plaintiff knew of the mistake or engaged in fraud, the court enforced the settlement and ordered the defendant to pay the remaining balance.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused during cross-examination on the basis of settlement and solicitor-client privilege, and to examine the plaintiff's counsel under Rule 39.03.

The underlying dispute involved a motion to enforce a wrongful dismissal settlement where the defendant alleged a mistake of fact regarding amounts already paid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not waived privilege by putting his legal advice in issue, and that examining opposing counsel was neither necessary nor highly material to justify breaching solicitor-client privilege.

The plaintiff successfully moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal order and sought costs of $7,680 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff was granted an indulgence and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found that while the plaintiff received an indulgence, the defendant unreasonably opposed the motion on the basis of prejudice that was caused by its own lack of diligence.

The court awarded the plaintiff reduced costs of $500, noting that much of the time claimed was unsubstantiated or for steps the plaintiff would have had to take regardless of the defendant's opposition.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar's dismissal for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court applied a contextual analysis, considering the Reid factors (length of delay, explanation, inadvertence, promptness, prejudice) as affirmed by H.B. Fuller Company.

The court found the delay was not inordinate or unexplained, noting contributions to delay from both parties and the plaintiff's ongoing intent to pursue the action.

It also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, attributing alleged prejudice (lost documents, audio recordings, witness contact) to the defendant's own lack of diligence in preserving evidence and complying with rules.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and a new timetable for remaining steps was ordered.

TSN brought a motion to set aside an ex parte sealing order that restricted public access to a court file involving the Niagara Ice Dogs and the Ontario Hockey League.

The underlying dispute concerned an OHL investigation into an alleged unwritten contract between the team and a player.

The court applied the Sierra Club test and found that while protecting the identity of minor players was an important public interest, there was no real and substantial risk to that interest on the evidence, especially since the complainant's identity was already public.

The sealing order was set aside, and costs were awarded to TSN and the OHL against the team.