Thomas J. Donnelly

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 49.09(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for judgment enforcing a settlement allegedly accepted by the self‑represented plaintiff.

The underlying action concerned allegations by a former Ph.D. student that his academic supervisor and the university engaged in harassment and misconduct that prevented him from completing his studies and caused psychological harm.

The court reviewed extensive settlement negotiations conducted by email and found that the defendants made a formal settlement offer which the plaintiff unequivocally accepted.

The plaintiff argued that there was no meeting of the minds, citing mental health issues, limited English proficiency, and alleged duress arising from financial pressure and the potential termination of health benefits.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the plaintiff had the capacity to contract, understood the terms including the requirement of a full and final release of all claims, and freely accepted the offer.

The settlement was enforced and judgment granted in accordance with its terms.

The applicant municipalities sought a declaration that their insurers had a duty to indemnify them for damages sought in two underlying actions relating to the expropriation of lands for a Toyota manufacturing plant.

The insurers argued the application was premature as the underlying actions involved substantial disputed facts and potential coverage exclusions, including whether the municipalities gained a personal profit or advantage, or if the claims were for restitution or statutory compensation.

The court dismissed the application, holding that unlike the duty to defend, the duty to indemnify must generally be determined after trial based on findings of fact, and the current record contained too many disputed facts to resolve the coverage issues prematurely.

The appellant religious order operated a residential school and held a claims-made comprehensive general liability policy.

During the policy period, the appellant became aware of allegations of abuse at the school and notified the insurer of potential future claims.

After the policy expired, numerous former students brought actions.

The insurer denied a duty to defend, arguing the claims were not made during the policy period.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the policy was unambiguously a claims-made policy.

Because a 'claim' requires the communication of an intention to hold the insured responsible for damages, and no such intention was communicated by the subsequent plaintiffs during the policy period, the insurer had no duty to defend those actions.