Enforceability Of Settlements In The Context Of Self-Represented Plaintiffs

• Published date: 26 November 2020
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: McCague Borlack LLP
• Author: Ms Jessica Grant and Michelle Isenstein

Case Study: Huma v. Mississauga Hospital

Introduction and Background

In Huma v. Mississauga Hospital,¹ Ioan Huma, Elena Huma, and Christine Huma (the "plaintiffs"), commenced a medical malpractice action against 14 physicians and two hospitals (the "defendants"), alleging to have suffered significant damages as a result of the professional wrongdoing of same. The plaintiffs obtained legal assistance with the preparation of their Statement of Claim. The lawyer who provided the assistance would not go on the record, and the Statement of Claim stated that the plaintiffs were self-represented. Upon receipt of the Claim, the defendants defended the action.

Months later, having heard nothing from the plaintiffs, the defendants inquired as to whether the plaintiffs were willing to dismiss the action on a without costs basis in exchange for a release. Elena Huma replied by email to counsel for the defendants, stating: "we are sending this email to inform you that we decided to dismiss this action...against all defendant doctors and hospitals, on a without costs basis..." ("the email"). She signed the email on behalf of all three of the plaintiffs. Counsel for the defendants replied and confirmed that his clients were agreeable to the dismissal. He provided a release, consent and draft order, and asked the plaintiffs to return signed copies of same. The plaintiffs then retained counsel, and subsequently refused to proceed with the settlement. The defendants moved, under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, to enforce the settlement.

Among other things, this case considers the use of overly broad releases, their applicability in the negotiating process, and their enforcement in the context of self-represented individuals.

The Motion Judge's Decision

The motions judge, Justice Sossin, considered two issues:

1. whether a binding settlement was reached, and
2. if so, whether he should refuse to enforce the settlement.

On the first issue, Justice Sossin concluded that, based on Elena Huma's email to counsel for the defendants, the parties had reached a binding agreement on specific terms of a settlement: that the action would be dismissed and that there would be no costs.

He then noted that the releases produced by the defendants included additional terms, such as confidentiality and a waiver of independent legal advice. He found that these terms should not be enforced and that they had no bearing on the applicability of the "essential" terms of the settlement (that...