Meghan Payment

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining to enforce a settlement agreement.

The appellant had accepted a Rule 49 offer to settle for $25,000, but the respondents resiled, arguing changed circumstances.

The motion judge found the offer was validly accepted but declined to enforce it, inferring that the respondents' counsel made a mistake by failing to withdraw the offer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by basing his decision on an argument not advanced by the parties and by inferring a mistake without evidence.

The settlement agreement was declared valid and enforceable.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn or stay an upcoming appeal pending the outcome of an application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal might find the subject matter of the underlying action to be within its exclusive jurisdiction, which would preclude the Superior Court from enforcing a settlement of that action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue on appeal—whether a legally enforceable settlement agreement was reached—was distinct from the merits of the claim and likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court also found that the respondents failed to bring their jurisdictional challenge and request for a stay on a timely basis.