Lindsay Moffatt

The moving parties sought to enforce a settlement agreement entered into by three brothers to separate their financial interests in a family excavation and construction business.

One brother opposed the motion, arguing the agreement was merely an 'agreement to agree' and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement on all essential terms, evidenced by the clear language of the agreement, their subsequent conduct, and partial performance.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to refuse enforcement, noting the strong public policy favouring settlements and the lack of any unconscionability or prejudice.

The motion was granted, and the settlement was ordered to be implemented with the assistance of an associate judge if necessary.

The defendant, Ikaria, brought a motion for security for costs.

The plaintiff agreed to post security, leaving only the quantum in dispute.

The defendant sought $244,636.81 up to mediation, while the plaintiff proposed $40,000.

The court found the defendant's estimate unreasonable and disproportionate, particularly regarding past motions, expert fees, and discovery attendance.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in the all-inclusive amount of $100,000, payable in three tranches.

No costs were awarded for the motion.

The plaintiff software provider sued the defendant investment management firm for unpaid invoices under an Investment Administration Services Agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could charge additional fees based on the Assets Under Administration (AUA) of all the defendant's funds, or only the specific fund for which the software was initially used.

The court applied principles of commercial contractual interpretation and found the plain language of the Agreement allowed fees based on total AUA.

The plaintiff was awarded $16,242.19 for AUA fees.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for concurrent user fees and post-termination service charges, finding the contract ambiguous on concurrent users and noting the plaintiff breached its own post-termination obligations.

The defendant's counterclaim for wrongful termination was dismissed because the termination was lawful given the unpaid AUA fees.