M. R. Gibson J.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) seeking a pre-trial determination that the termination provision in her employment agreement was unenforceable.

The defendant employer opposed the motion, arguing it was an inappropriate use of the rule.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the interpretation of the termination provision was a question of mixed fact and law, not a pure question of law.

Furthermore, the court held that deciding the issue would not dispose of the action, substantially shorten the trial, or save costs, especially since the primary issue was whether the employer had just cause for termination.

The moving defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the responding defendant and to dismiss the action and crossclaims against her.

The underlying action arose from a multi-vehicle collision where the moving defendant's vehicle was struck after the initial impact between the other defendants' vehicles.

The responding defendant had previously agreed to dismiss her crossclaim against the moving defendant without costs but later attempted to withdraw her consent.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement agreement had been reached and that the responding defendant failed to show any valid reason to resile from it.

The motion was granted, the settlement was enforced, and the action against the moving defendant was dismissed.