Duress & Undue Pressure

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-04-19
CLNP Page ID:	105
Page Categories:	Legal Principles, Interference of Reasonable Enjoyment (LTB)
Citation:	Duress & Undue Pressure, CLNP 105, <https://rvt.link/9p>, retrieved on 2024-04-19
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2023/11/17

Rawlins v. Rawlins, 2014 ONSC 5649 (CanLII)

[50] The respondent relies upon the case of Stott v. Merit Investment Corp., 1988 CanLII 192 (ON CA), 63 O.R. (2d) 545. On pages 561 to 562 the Court stated:

… But not all pressure, economic or otherwise, is recognized as constituting duress. It must be a pressure which the law does not regard as legitimate and it must be applied to such a degree as to amount to “a coercion of the will”, to use an expression found in English authorities, or it must place the party to whom the pressure is directed in a position where he has no “realistic alternative” but to submit to it, to adopt the suggestion of Professor Waddams (S.M. Waddams, The Law of Contract, 2nd ed. (1984), at p. 376 et seq.). Duress has the effect of vitiating consent and an agreement obtained thorugh [sic] duress is voidable at the instance of the party subjected to the duress unless by another agreement or through conduct, either express or implied, he affirms the impugned contract at a time when he is no longer the victim of the duress

...

[64] In para. 10 the court stated, “… the language of this paragraph, and indeed, of the minutes of settlement, in general, is clear and unambiguous. There was consensus, on the face of the documents, on this essential term, as well as on the payment of the settlement amounts.”

[65] Finally, the court stated in para. 11 as follows:

Secondly, the Court must determine whether, on all of the evidence, the agreement should be enforced. With respect to the question of whether the minutes of settlement, which I have found to have been intended by the parties and legally binding, should be enforced, I have considered the cases relied upon by the applicants of Dick v. Marek, supra, Richard v. Worth 2004 CanLII 34517 (ON SC), [2004 CarswellOnt 4310 (Ont. S.C.J.)], 2004 CanLII 34517, paragraph 16 and Vanderkop v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. [2005 CarswellOnt 5323 (Ont. S.C.J.)] 2005 CanLII 39686 at paragraph 34. Based on the factors to be considered in Richard v. Worth, supra, I find, based on the evidence, that this is not a case of mistake, that the agreement was reasonable, and that the only prejudice in this case is to the applicant who has suffered as a result of the employment insurance overpayment being deducted from her monthly benefits based on the settlement funds she never received.