Court File and Parties
Court File No.: FS-21-013-00 Date: 2025-08-29
Superior Court of Justice – Ontario
Re: Charmaine Marie Langlais, Applicant
v.
Paul Richard Stanley Dolyny, Respondent
Heard: August 28, 2025
Before: Fitzpatrick J.
Counsel:
- M. Cupello for Applicant
- P. Howie for Respondent
Mid Trial Endorsement on Voir Dire
[1] In this family law trial, counsel for the Applicant, Charmaine Langlais, seeks to introduce a one page hand written document to the Applicant in chief. The Respondent, Paul Dolyny, objects claiming the document was an offer to settle and is inadmissible on the basis of settlement privilege. We entered into a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the document. It was marked as a lettered exhibit "D" for the purposes of the voir dire.
[2] The document relates to a claim by the Applicant that she loaned $14,000.00 to the Respondent while they were still cohabitating. In addition to her vive voce evidence concerning this loan, the Applicant has tendered a cheque for $14,000.00 dated September 20, 2018 from the Applicant's personal chequing account payable to the Respondent. This was tendered outside of the voir dire. The Respondent did not testify on the voir dire.
[3] The Applicant argues that the document is relevant as it represents an admission of the obligation of the Respondent to pay the loan as alleged by the Applicant. The Respondent relies on public policy principles which prevent the disclosure of without prejudice settlement offers in trials related to the very issues covered in the offers.
[4] I am persuaded by the arguments of the Respondent that this document should not be admitted at this trial. Also, the vive voce evidence of the Applicant given on the voir dire is not admitted. I say this for the following reasons.
[5] Rule 18(1), (2), (4) and (8)(b) of the Family Law Rules provides as follows:
- (1) In this rule,
"offer" means an offer to settle one or more claims in a case, motion, appeal or enforcement, and includes a counter-offer.
Application
(2) This rule applies to an offer made at any time, even before the case is started…
(4) An offer must be signed personally by the party making it and also by the party's lawyer if any; …
Confidentiality of offer
(8) The terms of an offer,…
(b) shall not be mentioned to the judge hearing the claim dealt with in the offer, until the judge has dealt with all the issues in dispute except costs.
[6] On the voir dire the Applicant testified the document was a "proposal" received directly from the Respondent in August 2019. The parties separated in March 2019. It covered a number of issues including an offer to pay ongoing child support for the couple's three children and spousal support. The only words in the document relied upon by the Applicant for the purpose of the issue of the loan being adjudicated on this trial are:
"$14,000.00 at the end of this year"
[7] The Applicant testified she interpreted these words to mean that the Respondent was offering to pay her $14,000.00 out of an annual bonus he was expecting to receive in December 2019.
[8] In my view the document is clearly an offer to settle a substantial number of issues between parties who had separated. While a family law proceeding had not yet commenced, the Applicant had retained counsel at the time, and clearly the parties no longer intended to co-habit. While the document is not labeled "without prejudice", and is not signed, which would make it not technically compliant with the provisions of Rule 18(4), I find a plain reading of the words of the document indicate it is an offer to settle a family law dispute. The provisions of Rule 18(8)(b) express a clear policy statement that offers to settle are confidential. They are not to be placed before a judge hearing the claim until the judge has dealt with all issues in dispute except costs.
[9] In this case, the Respondent made the offer. The Applicant seeks to take advantage of that attempt to resolve the matter by tendering the document as an alleged admission of the alleged debt. In my view, the words in the document are not such an admission. I find the words in Exhibit "D" are not an acknowledgement of the loan as alleged by the Applicant.
[10] While the amount is coincident with the amount allegedly loaned, there are no other words which indicate acknowledgment of the debt or why the $14,000.00 will be paid. It simply says an amount will be paid at a particular time. That is all. People in conflict can make offers for a variety of reasons without admitting liability in the interests of moving on with their lives. Litigation is complicated, stressful and expensive. It can have long term negative impacts particularly in the family law context where children are involved.
[11] Sophisticated litigants qualify offers to settle with words like "without prejudice" or "without admission of liability". The evidence on the voir dire from the Applicant was that the document was received directly from the Respondent. It was not received from a lawyer. There is no evidence before the Court that the Respondent was represented by counsel in August 2019. I find he was self represented at the time. His failure to write qualifying words on the document do not detract from the essential quality of the document as an offer to settle a family law dispute.
[12] I agree with the Respondent's argument that the law of settlement privilege creates exceptions for the admission of otherwise relevant material to a trier of fact, in the interests of promoting settlement of family disputes without the necessity of engaging the trial process.
[13] For these reasons Exhibit "D" and the vive voce evidence of the Applicant given in regard to Exhibit "D" will not be admitted at this trial.
The Hon. Mr. Justice F.B. Fitzpatrick
Date: August 29, 2025