3 total
Costs awarded against third party following successful motion to enforce settlement agreement; settlement funds released.
The court issued an endorsement on costs and the settling of orders following a decision that declared a settlement agreement valid and stayed a fourth-party claim.
The court awarded partial indemnity costs against the third party, 1671233 Ontario Limited, in favour of the plaintiffs, defendants, and other third/fourth parties.
The court denied the plaintiffs' request for interest on the settlement funds but ordered the immediate release of the $80,000 held in trust.
The court also resolved disputes over the wording of the formal orders and the release document.
Settlement agreement enforced where insurer-appointed counsel had authority to bind the insured third party.
The plaintiffs and defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached between the parties, including the third party 1671233 Ontario Limited (167). 167's insurer had appointed counsel who agreed to the settlement on 167's behalf, but 167 subsequently refused to sign the release and issued a fourth party claim.
The court found that a valid settlement agreement was reached by counsel with ostensible authority.
Applying the factors from Milios v. Zagas, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement, finding it clear, reasonable, and not unduly prejudicial to 167.
Consequently, 167 was ordered to execute the release and its fourth party claim was stayed.
The court limited a mother's claim for retroactive child support to three years prior to formal notice due to unreasonable delay.
The applicant mother sought retroactive child support for three children under a 1997 separation agreement, arguing that the respondent father failed to properly index child support payments to account for his income increases.
The father argued that he had complied with the agreement's indexing formula (the lesser of income increase or CPI increase) and that the mother had not provided clear notice of her intention to seek guideline support until 2012.
The court found that the father's interpretation of the agreement was reasonable, that the mother had received sufficient income information over the years, and that the delay in seeking retroactive support was unreasonable.
The court awarded retroactive support for only the three-year period prior to formal notice in 2012, fixing arrears at $2,318.00 and ongoing support at $904.00 per month for the remaining dependent child.
