McGregor v. Peel Children's Aid Society

McGregor v. Peel Children's Aid Society Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-12-12 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 976 Docket numbers C63864 Judges Strathy, George R.; Juriansz, Russell G.; Huscroft, Grant Subject Family Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: McGregor v. Peel Children's Aid Society, 2017 ONCA 976 DATE: 20171212 DOCKET: C63864 Strathy C.J.O., Juriansz and Huscroft JJ.A. BETWEEN Tanzea McGregor Plaintiff (Appellant) and Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Toronto Police Service, Robertson House, Christine Steele and Tracy Severiano Defendants (Respondents) Matthew Tubie, for the appellant Fred Fischer, for the respondents Robertson House, Christine Steele and Tracy Severiano Heard: December 7, 2017 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Kenneth G. Hood of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 10, 2017. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals the order of the motion judge enforcing a settlement agreement she made with the respondents. [2] The settlement released the respondents from all causes of action and claims for damages, costs, and interest arising from the allegations in an action numbered CV-15-541151, and agreed to dismissal of the action, in exchange for the respondents’ agreement not to seek the costs they incurred in responding to the action. In addition, the respondents agreed not to make any claim or commence or maintain any action or proceeding in connection with CV-15-541151 or any matter covered by the release. [3] The appellant says that she intended to release the respondents from another, identical action, CV-15-540944, and that the motion judge misapprehended her evidence. [4] The motion judge found that the appellant, who was represented by counsel, executed a release that clearly indicated that it was in relation to CV-15-541151 and that it was a complete release of all causes of action and claims for damages in the action. Her signature was witnessed by her counsel, Mr. Adema, who forwarded the executed release to the respondents. The appellant did not deny that Adema was her counsel at the relevant time. [5] The motion judge found, further, that there was no evidence the appellant was misled by her counsel or was incapable of understanding the release she executed. The only evidence concerning the alleged mistake was the appellant’s assertion in her responding materials that Adema had prepared the release in error. However, the motion judge noted that the release materials were prepared by counsel for the respondents, not Adema. Furthermore, the appellant took no steps to claim that the release was executed in error. [6] These findings were open to the motion judge on the record before him, and there is no basis for this court to interfere with them. [7] The motion judge did not misapprehend the evidence. He was aware of the appellant’s second action but was not satisfied that the appellant made a mistake that would allow him to exercise his discretion not to enforce the settlement. His reasons adequately explain his decision. [8] The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to $1500 in costs, inclusive of taxes and disbursements. “G.R. Strathy C.J.O.” “R.G. Juriansz J.A.” “Grant Huscroft J.A.”