The court is reluctant to interfere with settlement agreements without clear, overriding errors
In a recent personal injury case, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an attempt to overturn a 2015 settlement on the grounds of the injured party's alleged disability at the time of the settlement.
The court affirmed the original settlement and emphasized its reluctance to interfere with settlement agreements without clear, overriding errors.
In 2015, Brandon Book and his parents settled their personal injury claim for approximately $231,000, with Brandon receiving $150,000 after fees and costs. The action was dismissed by consent.
In 2019, they sought to overturn the dismissal under Rule 7.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that Brandon was under disability during the settlement, making it unconscionable and improvident. The trial judge dismissed this motion, finding no evidence of Brandon's disability at the time of the settlement. He further noted that counsel represented the Books during the settlement, had not offered to return the settlement funds, and had delayed four years before challenging the settlement.
The Books claimed the trial judge misunderstood the incapacity test and erred in concluding that Brandon could enter into the settlement. They argued that the judge should have set aside the settlement and dismissal order.
However, the Court of Appeal found no legal error or misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge. The judge preferred the respondent's expert testimony over the appellants' expert. He also accepted evidence from the Books' lawyer, Rebecca Wissenz, who had no reason to doubt Brandon's capacity at the time of settlement. The judge found Brandon's father, Phillip Book, an unreliable witness.
The Books suggested that plaintiffs in personal injury cases with cognitive injuries should undergo assessments for their capacity to manage property and personal care before settlements. The Court of Appeal disagreed, stating this would complicate and discourage settlements unnecessarily.
Even if the trial judge had erred in assessing Brandon's capacity, the appeal would still fail as the judge concluded that the settlement and dismissal order should stand. The court emphasized that it would not interfere with a trial judge's findings unless there were palpable and overriding errors.
