The applicant and respondents, neighbours, settled an encroachment dispute, with a term requiring a mutual release.
Disagreement arose regarding the release's terms, specifically whether the applicant's wife, Lynn Horton, should be included and the effective date of the release.
The respondents brought a motion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement by settling the terms of the mutual release.
The court found that the inclusion of the applicant's wife and an effective date up to the signing of the final release was reasonable, given previous agreements between counsel and the parties' desire for a "clean break" from a contentious neighbourly relationship.
The court ordered the mutual release to include both the applicant and his wife, effective to the date of signing.
No costs were awarded.