Morant v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
2014 ONSC 2876
The plaintiff commenced an action against Sun Life seeking
payment of LTD benefits. The action was settled at
mediation. All parties were represented by counsel at
the time the settlement was reached. Minutes of
Settlement and a Full and Final Release were executed at the
mediation. Settlement funds were sent to counsel for the
plaintiff shortly thereafter, and deposited in the lawyer's
A few weeks later counsel for the plaintiff advised he had
instructions from the plaintiff indicating she wished to resile
from the settlement, and that counsel would be bringing a motion to
have the settlement set aside. No such motion was
brought. Instead Sun Life brought a motion seeking to enforce
In response to the motion the plaintiff did not swear an
affidavit. The only responding affidavit was in the
name of the lawyer for the plaintiff. He stated that the
plaintiff had advised him she had been in physical and emotional
pain during the mediation, was very fatigued, and felt unduly
stressed and pressured during the entire mediation
In enforcing the settlement the motions judge stated "At
its highest the plaintiff has put forward evidence that she had a
change of heart or what could be described as 'buyer's
remorse' approximately three weeks after the conclusion of the
settlement...This does not constitute proper grounds for the
setting aside of a properly concluded settlement."
The judge went on to note that no evidence was offered to
support the assertion the plaintiff was medically unfit at the time
she agreed to the settlement. While a court could
exercise discretion to set aside an unconscionable or fraudulent
settlement, that was not applicable to the case at bar.
Further, there was no indication counsel for the plaintiff did not
have authority to settle the matter, or that Sun Life was aware of
any limitation with respect to counsel's authority. As
such the plaintiff was held to the bargain that she made.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
The recent Preliminary Issue decision in Walsh and Echelon (FSCO A15-007448, August 31, 2016) confirms that an economic loss does not need to be demonstrated in order to be entitled to attendant care benefits.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Policyholders recently won a key victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. as the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of a standard form...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).