COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
MELINDA PATULLO (Plaintiff/Respondent) -and- DEAR‑BORN BABY EXPRESS INC., ROBERT J. COCKBURN, CATHERINE C. SCOTT, T. ROBERT HAMBLEY and BERNICE HARMAN (Defendants/Appellants)
AND RE:
CATHERINE C. SCOTT and BERNICE HARMAN (Applicants/Appellants) -and- ROBERT J. COCKBURN, DEAR‑BORN BABY EXPRESS INC., T. ROBERT HAMBLEY and MELINDA PATULLO (Respondents/Respondent in Appeal)
BEFORE:
CATZMAN, LANG and LaFORME JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Lubomir Poliacik
for the defendants/appellants in C41504 applicants/appellants in C41505 Catherine C. Scott and Bernice Harman
David Preger
for the defendants in C41504 respondents in C41505 Robert J. Cockburn and T. Robert Hambley
Enzo Di Iorio for the plaintiff/respondent in C41504 respondent/respondent in appeal in C41505 Melinda Patullo
HEARD AND RELEASED ORALLY:
January 10, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Peter C. Jarvis dated February 24, 2004.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1On the primary issue raised on this appeal, the correspondence between counsel clearly provided for a $275,000 payment in exchange for the Patullo shares. The settlement was, however, subject to payment of those monies “contemporaneously with our clients [Scott and Cockburn] reorganizing their affairs.” An earlier paragraph of the same letter explained the contemplated reorganization by indicating that the shares would “probably be purchased by Cathy Scott’s holding company and Bob Cockburn’s holding company as a result of a reorganization relating to their affairs.” There was nothing to indicate that the reorganization might not be accomplished or that it would not be accomplished within a reasonable time. Further, the contemplated reorganization was exclusively within the control of Scott and Cockburn and not within either the knowledge or the control of Ms. Patullo.
2In concluding that the settlement was not contingent on the reorganization, the motion judge interpreted the reorganization caveat in a manner consistent with the intentions of the parties in the context of the settlement correspondence and surrounding circumstances. In that context, the motion judge was entitled to his interpretation that the payment would be made within a reasonable time. In so interpreting the language chosen by Scott and Cockburn’s counsel, the motion judge was entitled to draw the inference that, if the settlement was intended to be contingent on the reorganization, the letter would have said so. We do not see this as an application of the principle of contra proferentem. The motion judge did not find any ambiguity in the terms of settlement and neither do we.
3The motion judge, however, added an order for an additional payment to Ms. Patullo to compensate her for any tax consequences attracted by payment of the $275,000. On its face, the $275,000 was to be payable inclusive of tax consequences, subject to the right of Ms. Patullo to direct its payment to a corporate entity.
4Accordingly, we would allow the appeal to delete reference to the payment being net of all applicable taxes. The order remains requiring completion of the settlement. If the parties have any difficulty with that implementation, they may return to Jarvis J. for further direction.
5Finally, the letter suggesting that litigation should not be necessary to enforce the settlement contained no element of compromise. Further, given the issues addressed in that letter, it could not have been recognized as a Rule 49 offer. In those circumstances, the motion judge erred in awarding Ms. Patullo substantial indemnity costs against Ms. Scott. Rather, costs should have been awarded on a partial indemnity basis.
6In the result, the appeal is allowed only to the extent of providing that the settlement payment of $275,000 includes all applicable taxes and by reducing the costs awarded on the motion before the motion judge to partial indemnity costs fixed at $17,500, inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.
7The respondents were substantially successful on this appeal. Costs on a partial indemnity basis are awarded on a reduced basis reflecting the mixed result. Those costs, inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements, are fixed at $5,000 for Ms. Patullo and $3,500 for Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Hambley together.
Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.”
“S.E. Lang J.A.”
“H.S. LaForme J.A.”