Set Aside Minutes of Settlement: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "[http://canlii.ca/t/2dx3r Anamguya v. Intercon Security, 2010 HRTO 2464 (CanLII)] [14] Decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal since CUPE maintain the balance set...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Small Claims]] | |||
[http://canlii.ca/t/2dx3r Anamguya v. Intercon Security, 2010 HRTO 2464 (CanLII)] | [http://canlii.ca/t/2dx3r Anamguya v. Intercon Security, 2010 HRTO 2464 (CanLII)] | ||
[14] Decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal since CUPE maintain the balance set out in the CUPE decision between the public interest in the finality of contracts between parties and fairness to the individual, by confirming that abuse of process should only be found in the clearest of cases. See, for example, Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 ONCA 799 (CanLII), Waterloo (City) v. Wolfraim, 2007 ONCA 732 (CanLII), and France v. Liang, 2007 ONCA 741 (CanLII). In Joshi v. Joshi, 2006 CanLII 4940 (ON C.A.), the Court of Appeal took into consideration the personal circumstances of an appellant who moved to set aside Minutes of Settlement where there were outstanding allegations by the appellant of failure to disclose and where the applicant was “unsophisticated, on a disability pension, and his English is very poor. Except on the case conference in this case, he always had a translator with him... He also deposed that he did not understand the minutes of settlement” (at para. 1). | [14] Decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal since CUPE maintain the balance set out in the CUPE decision between the public interest in the finality of contracts between parties and fairness to the individual, by confirming that abuse of process should only be found in the clearest of cases. See, for example, Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 ONCA 799 (CanLII), Waterloo (City) v. Wolfraim, 2007 ONCA 732 (CanLII), and France v. Liang, 2007 ONCA 741 (CanLII). In Joshi v. Joshi, 2006 CanLII 4940 (ON C.A.), the Court of Appeal took into consideration the personal circumstances of an appellant who moved to set aside Minutes of Settlement where there were outstanding allegations by the appellant of failure to disclose and where the applicant was “unsophisticated, on a disability pension, and his English is very poor. Except on the case conference in this case, he always had a translator with him... He also deposed that he did not understand the minutes of settlement” (at para. 1). | ||
Revision as of 18:07, 12 December 2019
Anamguya v. Intercon Security, 2010 HRTO 2464 (CanLII)
[14] Decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal since CUPE maintain the balance set out in the CUPE decision between the public interest in the finality of contracts between parties and fairness to the individual, by confirming that abuse of process should only be found in the clearest of cases. See, for example, Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 ONCA 799 (CanLII), Waterloo (City) v. Wolfraim, 2007 ONCA 732 (CanLII), and France v. Liang, 2007 ONCA 741 (CanLII). In Joshi v. Joshi, 2006 CanLII 4940 (ON C.A.), the Court of Appeal took into consideration the personal circumstances of an appellant who moved to set aside Minutes of Settlement where there were outstanding allegations by the appellant of failure to disclose and where the applicant was “unsophisticated, on a disability pension, and his English is very poor. Except on the case conference in this case, he always had a translator with him... He also deposed that he did not understand the minutes of settlement” (at para. 1).
