Johnston v. McLean

Johnston v. McLean

The Court of Appeal held that consent judgments are to be interpreted as contracts under Sattva principles, but on the facts the Consent Judgment selectively incorporated specific paragraphs of the Minutes of Settlement and did not incorporate the Farm sale/transfer provision; the appellants’ prolonged delay...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 ONCA 791
Parties
Appellant (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity): Mary Ellen Johnston; Appellant (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity): Karen Hutchinson; Respondent (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity): Laura Johnston McLean; Respondent (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity): Elizabeth Brydges
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Estate Litigation / Appeal to Court of Appeal for Ontario From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated January 26, 2024; Heard October 23, 2024
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; underlying dispositional findings upheld on their merits; appellants ordered to pay costs of appeal.
Legal Topics
Consent Judgment Interpretation, Contractual Interpretation (sattva), Repudiation and Acceptance of Repudiation, Incorporation of Settlement Terms Into Court Orders, Costs
Source Language
english
Estate Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Property Law Consent Judgment Interpretation Contractual Interpretation (sattva) Repudiation and Acceptance of Repudiation Incorporation of Settlement Terms Into Court Orders +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Ellen Johnston

Appellant (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity)

Karen Hutchinson

Appellant (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity)

Laura Johnston McLean

Respondent (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity)

Elizabeth Brydges

Respondent (named Estate Trustee and in Personal Capacity)

Procedural Posture

Civil Estate Litigation / Appeal to Court of Appeal for Ontario From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated January 26, 2024; Heard October 23, 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct analytical approach to interpreting a consent judgment (dictionary meaning v. contractual/Sattva approach)?
  2. 2 Whether the sale/transfer provision for the Farm in the Minutes of Settlement was incorporated into the Consent Judgment
  3. 3 Whether the appellants repudiated the agreement to purchase the Farm by unreasonable delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that consent judgments are to be interpreted as contracts under Sattva principles, but on the facts the Consent Judgment selectively incorporated specific paragraphs of the Minutes of Settlement and did not incorporate the Farm sale/transfer provision; the appellants’ prolonged delay constituted repudiation of the agreement to purchase the Farm and the respondents’ March 19, 2018 communication amounted to a clear acceptance of that repudiation, terminating appellants’ contractual rights; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; underlying dispositional findings upheld on their merits; appellants ordered to pay costs of appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants to pay costs of the appeal to the respondents in the all‑inclusive sum of CAD 18,526.