Enforcing Releases (Civil)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-05-17
CLNP Page ID:	1852
Page Categories:	[Legal Principles]
Citation:	Enforcing Releases (Civil), CLNP 1852, <5w>, retrieved on 2024-05-17
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2022/01/21

Taske Technology Inc. v. Prairiefyre Software Inc., 2004 CanLII 66295 (ON SC)

[17] A valid release is a bar to any subsequent action against the releasee which purports to deal with the released claims. (see Browne supra at para.9) It is well settled that law that parties who reach settlement must be held to their bargains.2 In Abundance Marketing Inc. v. Integrity Marketing Inc., [2002] O.J. No. 3796 (Ont. S.C.J.), Whitten, J. states at para 22 “A Release, as the name suggest, is intended to liberate once and for all, party from any liability to another party arising out of particular circumstances”. I agree with the defendants that the policy reasons for enforcing a valid release mirror the policy principles underlying the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel. Malone J.A. sets these out, in Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. (2002), 2002 FCA 210 (CanLII), [2003] 1 F.C. 242 (Fed. C.A.) para. 26-29 leave to appeal dismissed (2003), [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 323 (S.C.C.):

Issue estoppel applies to preclude relitigation of an issue which has been conclusively and finally decided in previous litigation between the same parties and their privies,…It applies not only to issues decided finally and conclusively, but also to arguments that could have been raised by a party in exercise of reasonable diligence. (Fidelitas Shipping Co, Ltd. v. V/O Exportchleb, [1966] 1 Q.B. 630 (C.A.); Merck v. Apotex Inc. (1999), 1999 CanLII 9235 (FCA), 5 C.P.R. (4th) 363 (F.C.A.)) Issue estoppel applies where an issue has been decided in one action between the parties, and renders that decision conclusive in a later action between the same parties, notwithstanding that the cause of action may be different.

(emphasis mine)

[18] Schroeder J. in Hoyer reviewed the law of releases Hoyer v. Toronto Transportation Commission (1951), [1952] O.W.N. 261 (Ont. H.C.). In that case, the Plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger in a bus owned and operated by the Defendant. He was taken to the hospital given emergency treatment and a few days later made a settlement. About a week after the settlement the condition of the Plaintiff’s back became worse and he was hospitalized for an extended period of time. It was determined to be reasonably probable that the trauma to which the Plaintiff had been subjected had caused an aggravation of an earlier condition suffered by the Plaintiff. In the action subsequently commenced by the plaintiff, the trial judge only had to consider the issue of the settlement and of the release. He had this to say at paragraph 9:

In all these cases, where settlements of this nature have been arranged, there must be some finality, and, has been stated in judgments of high authority, “persons must not be allowed to play fast and loose with settlements made”, particularly when they are made deliberately, intentionally and with full knowledge of all of the facts; see Gissing v. T. Eaton Co. (1912), 25 O.L.R. 50. In that case the Court did not allow the Plaintiff to re-open the case even though he had not realized the seriousness of his injuries at the time that he had concluded his settlement.

Fehr v. Gribilas, 2022 ONSC 275 (CanLII)

[93] With respect to the second issue, Justice Laskin said that Wiggins Mechanical had no independent right to obtain a stay of the third party claim, which was brought by Richards; however, the stay of the third party claim followed from the stay of the main action, which was the catalyst for Richards’ claim over for contribution and indemnity.

[94] As a matter of doctrinal analysis, there are four features of Sinclair-Cockburn Insurance Brokers Ltd. v. Richards that need to be noticed and emphasized for the purposes of understanding the application of its law to the facts of the immediate case.

• First, the stay of the main action and of the third party claim was based on the court’s procedural jurisdiction to stay actions that are an abuse of process. Thus, both Justice Mesbur and Justice Laskin referred to Re Abitibi Paper Company Limited v. The Queen, where the Court of Appeal held that the Crown’s breach of an agreement not to prosecute constituted an abuse of process.

• Second, and this is a corollary of the first feature, the stay of the main action and of the third party claim was not based on the law of contract, although contractual principles including the concept of privity of contract are mentioned. Thus, a non-party to the release, someone without privity of contract (i.e., Richards) through procedural law was a beneficiary of the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction to stay an action as an abuse of process.

• Third, Sinclair-Cockburn had not contracted for the possibility of suing Richards. In other words, a party can carve out exceptions to the scope of the no-claims-over provision in a release but Sinclair-Cockburn had not done so and was held to its bargain which barred it from suing Richards who foreseeably would claim over against Wiggins Mechanical.

• Fourth, the court did not stay the claims against Richards in the main action for which she had no claim over against Wiggins Mechanical. Those claims did not and could not precipitate a claim over against Wiggins Mechanical and thus were not connected to the no-claims-over provision.

[95] As will appear from the discussion below, these features of the Sinclair-Cockburn case are particularly important to the immediate case, and thus these features are worthy of additional analysis. With respect to the first, second, and third features, it is the court’s abuse of process jurisdiction and not contract law that enforces releases that include a no-claims-over provision. That said, it is the policy of holding contracting parties to their bargains that explains the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction to stay or dismiss the proceedings that breach the contractual obligations.[18] It is possible to limit the scope of a no-claims-over provision, but Sinclair-Cockburn had not bargained for a limitation to the no-claims-over provision.