Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-473503 DATE: 20170519 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JIM DART, Plaintiff/Respondent AND: PHILIP PAUL ST. JULES AND SHAUNA GRAY, Defendants/ Moving Parties
BEFORE: Stewart J.
COUNSEL: Laura Meschino, for the Plaintiff/Respondent Ron Aisenberg, for the Defendants/Moving Parties
HEARD: October 21, 2016
Endorsement
Nature of the Motion
[1] The Defendants seek summary judgment dismissing this action as against them because of an agreement and release that was agreed to and executed in writing by the parties. As a result, the Defendants submit there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.
[2] The Plaintiff argues that the sole issue raised by him is whether the agreement and release constitute a settlement binding on the parties. He submits that the issue is a genuine one that requires a trial to determine.
Background Facts
[3] The Defendants own a house at 24 Woodycrest Avenue, Toronto.
[4] In May 2011, the Defendants met with the Plaintiff to discuss hiring him to perform renovations at their house.
[5] On June 24, 2011, the parties came to an oral agreement that the Plaintiff would perform the renovations.
[6] The Defendants assert that a specific price of $130,000.00 for the work to be done was agreed upon. They claims that the amount reflects an agreement to pay $115,000.00 for the work and an additional $15,000.00 for HST.
[7] The Plaintiff says that the $130,000 figure was just an estimate and claims there was an oral agreement that payment would be made on a “time and materials” basis.
[8] The Defendants moved out of their house from August 1, 2011 to November 23, 2011, while the Plaintiff performed renovations.
[9] There were some modifications made to the original work that had been agreed upon. Toward the end of October 2011, the Plaintiff asked to be paid more money.
[10] By December 2011, the Defendants had paid the Plaintiff a total of $115,000. They then told the Plaintiff that they would not be paying him any more money.
[11] The Plaintiff disagreed with the position of the Defendants and continued to press them for more money to complete the job.
[12] On January 26, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Philip Paul St. Jules met at a local coffee shop. St. Jules handed to the Plaintiff two copies of a document which contained the signatures of the Defendants and contained a signature line for the Plaintiff to sign.
[13] St. Jules told the Plaintiff that he had a certified cheque for $14,950 payable to him to pay everything considered to be owed on the entire contract. St. Jules said he would give the cheque to the Plaintiff in return for his execution of the document.
[14] The Plaintiff read the document, signed it, and handed it back to St. Jules. St. Jules then gave the Plaintiff the certified cheque.
[15] The Plaintiff’s evidence on this motion does not contradict St. Jules’ version of events in any material way. The Plaintiff agrees that the Plaintiff told him that he would only give him the cheque on the condition that he sign the document.
[16] The document executed by the parties, dated January 26, 2016, states:
At the behest of Shauna Gray and Phil St. Jules renovation work was carried out by Jim Dart, as general contractor, and his associates at 24 Woodycrest Avenue, Toronto from mid July through the third week of December 2011. The majority of the work was substantially completed, minus the third floor deck, on November 23, 2011. Phil and Shauna agree that the job was performed in a workman like manner and is acceptable to them. In light of the substantial completion of the majority of the work, except for the third floor deck, Shauna and Phil agree to provide a certified cheque in the amount of $14,950.00, bringing the total amount paid to Jim Dart to $129,950.00 including tax. They also release him from any responsibility concerning the building of the third floor deck. Acceptance of this cheque and the signing of this document signifies and acknowledges that Shauna Gray, Phil St. Jules and the property known as 24 Woodycrest Avenue Toronto are absolved of any further financial responsibility to Jim Dart, his subcontractors or associates.
Law and Discussion
[17] Is there a genuine issue for trial?
[18] Applying the approach to a motion for summary judgment as set out in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, I conclude there is no such issue and the action ought to be dismissed.
[19] The Plaintiff’s only substantial argument is that he was coerced into signing the agreement and release because he needed the money.
[20] A contract may be set aside for economic duress where one contracting party applies illegitimate pressure and the other party has no choice but to submit to the pressure.
[21] There is nothing in the evidence before me that amounts to unfair, illegitimate or undue pressure applied to the Plaintiff. He was offered a settlement and accepted it. There is no evidence that he had limited time to accept and he did not ask for time to think about the offer. The only actual pressure was the Plaintiff’s own concern about his financial situation and needs.
[22] In my opinion, the circumstances under which the settlement was concluded do not amount to duress in any legal sense that would relieve him of the impact of the bargain and settlement he made.
[23] Further, the Plaintiff affirmed the settlement by keeping the $14,950.00 paid to him. There is no evidence from the Plaintiff that the $14,950 is available to return to the Defendants to set aside the settlement, nor is there any indication that the Plaintiff is willing to do so.
[24] There are strong policy reasons for the court’s general attitude to the enforcement of settlements. It is in the interest of all that litigation freely concluded by the parties’ agreement be upheld (see: Remedy Drug Store Co. Inc. v. Farnham, 2015 ONCA 576).
[25] In my view, the dispute in this case was resolved by the written agreement of the parties and a comprehensive release was executed by the Plaintiff. The subject matter of the action is therefore settled, and such settlement should be enforced.
Conclusion
[26] For these reasons, the motion is granted and this action is dismissed.
Costs
[27] If the parties cannot agree on the subject of costs, written submissions may be delivered by the Defendants within 20 days of the date of this decision, and by the Plaintiff within 10 days thereafter.