Richard Brown

The defendant brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement agreement reached on December 8, 2023, in a professional negligence action.

The plaintiff opposed, claiming a misunderstanding with his own counsel regarding the scope of settlement authority.

The court applied Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that an objective review of the correspondence between counsel clearly indicated a mutual intention to create a legally binding contract.

The court held that any misunderstanding was solely between the plaintiff and his lawyers, not between the parties, and therefore did not invalidate the settlement.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant mother sought to vary child support and special expenses for the parties' son, SA, based on a material change in circumstances since their 2009 Separation Agreement.

The respondent father disputed the extent of his obligations and sought proportional sharing of private school expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances but declined to vary the basic child support amount of $810 per month, leaving income determination for trial due to the father's opaque financial disclosure.

The court ordered the parties to share SA's private school expenses proportionally (mother 47%, father 58%) from October 1, 2016, based on their respective incomes of $80,000 and $91,500.

Claims for other extracurricular activities not defined as special or extraordinary expenses in the Agreement or Guidelines were dismissed.