"Buyer's Remorse" Does Not Entitle Plaintiff to Rescind Settlement

In almost every settlement, there is an element of compromise.  In some cases, there is "settlor's remorse" and one of the parties tries to rescind the agreement.  Fortunately, the courts generally hold litigants to their bargains.

An example is Morant v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONSC 2876 (S.C.J.).  The parties attended a mediation where they reached a settlement.  Approximately two weeks letter, the plaintiff's counsel wrote advising his client wished to resile from the settlement and would bring a motion to set it aside.  Plaintiff's counsel filed an affidavit deposing that at the time of the settlement, the plaintiff was in emotional and physical pain, extremely fatigued and felt unduly stressed and pressured.  The plaintiff herself did not file an affidavit.

Justice Daly dismissed the motion to set aside the settlement.  Justice Daley held that as a general rule parties are held to their agreements, although there are certain situations where courts may exercise discretion not to enforce a settlement: 

[34]           As a general rule parties are to be held to their bargains and to settlements which they negotiate and conclude. The court may exercise its discretion not to enforce the terms of a settlement where there is evidence that:

(a)               the resulting agreement and settlement was unconscionable, fraudulent or based on a party’s misapprehension of a material fact which was known to the opposite party;

(b)               the solicitor representing the party was not retained or did not have authority to settle the action and this limitation was known to the opposite party; and

(c)               the party lacked the legal or mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement at the material time.

In the circumstances, there was no evidence that counsel did not have authority, that the plaintiff lacked capacity or that the settlement was unconscionable.  At most, the plaintiff's evidence was that she had a change of heart or "buyer's remorse", which does not constitute proper grounds for setting aside a settlement.

Settlement Implies Release Will be Furnished

In most cases, parties are able to agree on the form of release when a settlement has been reached.  A recent case confirmed that there is an implied agreement to furnish a release, unless there is an express agreement to the contrary.

In OZ Optics Limited v. Timbercon Inc., 2013 ONSC 6439 (S.C.J.), the parties agreed on a settlement, but were unable to agree on the wording of a release.  Justice McNamara held that the case law is clear that where a settlement is reached, it is normally implied that an executed final released will be provided, unless there is an agreement otherwise.  In the circumstances, there was no express agreement not to furnish a release.  Justice McNamara held that the draft release prepared by the plaintiff was fair, reasonable and reflective of the agreement reached by the parties.

Settlement Privilege

The Supreme Court of Canada recently commented on Pierringer Agreements.  The issue was whether the non-settling defendants had the right to know the amount of the settlement between the plaintiff and settling defendants.

In Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp. [2013] SCC 37, the plaintiff sued a number of defendants.  It entered into a Pierringer Agreement with several defendants and the non-settling defendants requested disclosure of the settlement amounts.  The non-settling defendants received all non-financial terms of the Agreement, had access to all relevant documents and other evidence in the settling defendants' hands and were assured that they would not be held liable for more than their share of damages.  In addition, the plaintiff agreed to provide the settlement amounts to the trial judge at the end of trial, so that if the non-settling defendants established a right to set-off, their liability for damages could be adjusted downwards. 

The Court held that the settlement amounts did not have to be disclosed to the non-settling defendants.  The amounts were protected by settlement privilege, which is a class privilege, meaning there is a prima facie presumption of inadmissibility.  The public interest in promoting settlement was greater than any prejudice to the non-settling defendants.  The Court rejected the argument that the non-settling defendants required knowledge of the settlement amounts to know and present their case, or to explore their own settlement possibilities.

It is clear that the Court highly values settlement and this decision aims to encourage settlement and the use of Pierringer Agreements in multi-party litigation.

Enforcing Settlement

Amyotte v. Wawanesa, [2012] ONSC 2072 (S.C.J.)


The issue on this motion was whether a settlement entered into by counsel could be upheld.

The defendant served a r. 49 offer to settle the plaintiff's accident benefits claim shortly before trial. The offer was sent by email in the following terms: "Payment to the Plaintiff of the sum of $15,000.00 inclusive of interest in full and final settlement of all accident benefits claims of the Plaintiff and all claims as against the Defendant in the within action" and partial indemnity costs. Plaintiff counsel responded with “We accept the offer and the action is settled…”. Defence counsel asked plaintiff counsel what was wanted for costs. Plaintiff counsel e-mailed back “15 k all in”. The next day, defence counsel e-mailed “How would you like the settlement broken down for Release purposes? $10,000 past and future rehab and $5,000 for costs and disbursements?” The reply was “Yes thx”.

Upon receiving a release and settlement disclosure notice from the defendant, the plaintiff took the position that the settlement did not include all accident benefits and that she was entitled to rescind the offer under the rescission provisions of the SABS. The Court disagreed, holding that if the plaintiff meant to restrict the settlement she should have done so rather than unconditionally accepting it. Once she chose to pursue litigation she could not avoid the consequences of r. 49 by falling back on the rights afforded by the SABS.

The settlement was upheld.

- Tara Pollitt

Pierringer-type Agreements

Pierringer-type agreements are exotic sounding. But are they really useful or worthwhile using in everyday insurance-type cases?

It seems to me that in the proper circumstances they can, in fact, be quite useful. And they are not really as complicated or exotic as they might at first seem.

They are useful where one defendant is willing to settle with the plaintiff while the other defendant is not.

The agreement simply permits the plaintiff to settle with the "settling defendant" but proceed with the action against the "non-settling defendant".

Such an agreement was approved by the Ontario Court of Appeal in JM and WB, 2004 O.J. No 2312, 71 O.R. (3d) 171 (C.A.).

The agreement should provide:

1. That the settlement and payment contemplated are not to be taken as an admission of liability on the part of the settling defendant;

2. That the action will be dismissed as against the settling defendant, on consent and without costs;

3. That the plaintiffs will use their best efforts to cause any crossclaims against the settling defendant to be similarly dismissed, without costs, in order to fully and finally conclude all litigation arising from the matters pleaded in the action against the settling defendant;

4. A full and final release by the plaintiffs in favour of the settling defendant;

5. That the plaintiffs will indemnify and hold harmless the settling defendant from any crossclaim or third party claim, and any other proceeding or claim arising from the issues and allegations in the within action; and

6. For the disclosure of the agreement, including the settlement amount provided thereunder, to the trial court, on certain conditions.

The indemnity provision should state that the plaintiffs restrict their claim to whatever the non‑settling defendants may be directly liability for and, as such, non-settling defendants cannot be jointly liable with the settling defendant.

This means that non-settling defendants have no basis to seek contribution, indemnity, relief over by way of equitable subrogation, declaratory relief or otherwise against the settling defendant.

An order should then be obtained dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim against the settling defendant, after which the plaintiffs amend their statement of claim, on consent, to reflect its compromises in its claim detailed in the Pierringer agreement, stating as follows:

The plaintiff has agreed with the settling defendant that it shall limit its claims against the non-settling defendants to claims for damages, costs and interest attributable only to the non-settling defendants share of liability to the plaintiff (and joint liability to one another, if any, and if there is more than one non-settling defendant) such that the plaintiff’s recovery shall be limited to recovering the damages, costs and interest attributable to the non-settling defendants’ several share of liability (or joint share of liability if more than one non-settling defendant) as proven against it or them at trial.

For greater certainty, the plaintiff shall have no claim directly or indirectly against the settling defendant and the plaintiff shall limit its claim against the non-settling defendant so as to exclude any crossclaim or third party claim made against or which could be made against the settling defendant arising from the issues in this action.

The plaintiff admits that the Court at any trial of this matter has and shall have full authority to adjudicate upon the apportionment of liability, if any, between all defendants named in the Statement of Claim, including the settling defendants, whether or not the settling defendants remain as parties by crossclaim or third party claim in this action.

The terms of the agreement listed above, plus amendments to the Statement of Claim, were approved by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in the above-noted decision.