We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Earlier this year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused
to enforce a settlement after finding that the plaintiffs'
lawyer had engaged in civil fraud by misrepresenting the
independence of two witnesses at a pre-trial conference. In
addition to refusing to enforce the settlement, the Court awarded
$100,000 in costs payable by the plaintiffs on the failed motion to
enforce settlement.
Today, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision, and agreed to enforce the
settlement. The Court of Appeal found that plaintiff
counsel's representations did not amount to civil fraud given
the adversarial nature of litigation, and the fact that the
representations were reportedly made in good faith (at para
24).
The plaintiffs' counsel's description of the witnesses
was a legitimate exercise of advocacy. No complaint could have been
made if counsel had provided a jury with the same observations
concerning the quality of the witnesses in issue. Opinions as to
whether someone is a good or independent witness are as open to
debate and disagreement as opinions as to whether someone is a good
lawyer. The degree of acquaintance may range from intimate to
non-existent, with innumerable variations between those extremes.
The point at which the degree of acquaintance renders a witness
"not independent" or biased may be open to debate and may
differ in different settings.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeal referenced the importance of
finality in litigation, and expressed concerns that the pretrial
occurred eight years following the accident (at para 36).
This pretrial occurred some eight years after the accident. It
cannot be said that the defendant's counsel acted with due
diligence in investigating or asking any questions about any link
between the plaintiffs and the witnesses. In the absence of such
due diligence, the need for finality in legal proceedings favours
enforcing the settlement. The motion judge erred in concluding that
any need for due diligence on the part of the defendants came to an
end as a result of the submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs
about the qualities of the witnesses.
In the result, not only was the $850,000 settlement found
enforceable with $30,000 in costs payable on the appeal, but the
$100,000 lower court costs award was also reversed and found
payable to the plaintiffs.
Ultimately, the court left open the possibility that, on
different facts, a settlement could be found unenforceable where
civil fraud was committed; however, it appears these circumstances
will be rare (at para 30).
This is not to say that there may not be some circumstances
where a factual misrepresentation by counsel in judicial
proceedings amounts to deceit or civil fraud. For example, counsel
who tendered as evidence a forged cheque evidencing payment of a
debt in an action on that debt, and who knew the cheque was a false
document, could be liable for deceit. In those circumstances there
would be no reasonable basis for the factual assertion; nor could
it be said that the statement was made in good faith.
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.
Mr. Demetriou claimed he was robbed of a $550,000.00 ring (a family heirloom) that he was wearing on a gold chain around his neck while walking alone on a beach in Punta Cana.
Following our earlier bulletin commenting on Canada's 2018 Budget commitment to introducing a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) regime for corporate wrongdoing, the Canadian Government swiftly introduced legislation to deliver on its commitment
Fraud continues to plague businesses and individuals in Canada and abroad, increasing at an alarming rate. Those involved in asset recovery frequently turn to the equitable doctrine