Ramdial v. Davis, (2015) 341 O.A.C. 78 (CA)

• Judge: Gillese, van Rensburg and Miller, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: Tuesday October 06, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2015), 341 O.A.C. 78 (CA);2015 ONCA 726

Ramdial v. Davis (2015), 341 O.A.C. 78 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. OC.034

Chandra Ramdial (applicant/appellant) v. John Frederick Davis, by his Litigation Guardian Richard John Davis (respondent/respondent)

(C59917; 2015 ONCA 726)

Indexed As: Ramdial v. Davis

Ontario Court of Appeal

Gillese, van Rensburg and Miller, JJ.A.

October 29, 2015.

Summary:

Ramdial commenced matrimonial proceedings related to the breakdown of her marriage to Davis. The parties and their solicitors negotiated and executed a settlement agreement, without formal valuations of certain properties. Ramdial resiled from it within a month of its execution. Davis moved for summary judgment (Family Law Rules 16(1) and 16(6)). Ramdial moved to have the settlement agreement set aside.

The Ontario Superior Court granted Davis' motion and dismissed Ramdial's motion. The motions judge found there was insufficient evidence of duress, unconscionability, and/or an improvident bargain to warrant setting aside the settlement agreement. Ramdial appealed, raising two issues: that the motions judge erred by (i) failing to order a trial of the issues, and (ii) failing to consider whether the substance of the settlement agreement complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Family Law - Topic 890.2

Husband and wife - Marital property - Considerations in making distribution orders - Settlements - [See both Practice - Topic 9856].

Family Law - Topic 972

Husband and wife - Actions between husband and wife - Practice - Settlements (incl. enforcement of) - [See Practice - Topic 5702 and both Practice - Topic 9856].

Family Law - Topic 3273

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Enforcement - Summary judgment - [See Practice - Topic 5702 and both Practice - Topic 9856].

Family Law - Topic 3354

Separation agreements, domestic contracts and marriage contracts - Effect of agreement - In matrimonial property application - [See second Practice - Topic 9856].

Family Law - Topic 4196

Divorce - Practice - Judgments and orders - Summary judgments and summary trials - [See Practice - Topic 5702].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - In matrimonial proceedings, the parties and their solicitors negotiated and executed a settlement agreement - The appellant resiled from it within a month of its execution - The respondent moved for summary judgment (Family Law Rule 16(6)) - The motion judge made an order for summary judgment - The appellant submitted that the motions judge erred by failing to order a trial of the issues raised on the motions - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the appellant's submission reflected a misunderstanding of the operation of rule 16(6) - "[O]nce the respondent discharged his burden of showing that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the appellant bore an evidentiary burden to respond with evidence of specific facts showing that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial. The motions judge found that [the appellant] failed to meet that evidentiary burden. I agree with the motions judge." - See paragraphs 22 to 31.

Practice - Topic 9855.1

Settlements - Enforceability - Where a party refuses to execute settlement - [See both Practice - Topic 9856].

Practice - Topic 9856

Settlements - Judgment based on - The parties entered into a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve all claims arising from the breakdown of their marriage - Both sides were represented by legal counsel - Financial disclosure preceded the negotiation process but without formal valuations of certain properties - The appellant sought to resile from the settlement agreement within a month of its execution, based on the allegation that she was vulnerable (as a diabetic) and under duress in the mediation process - The respondent moved for summary judgment - The motions judge made an order for summary judgment and dismissed the appellant's motion to have the settlement agreement set aside - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge - "The motions judge was fully alive to the Miglin dictates in this step of stage one. He considered all of the circumstances relating to the negotiation and execution of the Settlement Agreement, not limiting himself to the specific allegations based on vulnerability and duress. He concluded that nothing in those circumstances gave rise to a basis on which to interfere with the Settlement Agreement." - See paragraphs 32 to 45.

Practice - Topic 9856

Settlements - Judgment based on - The parties entered into a negotiated settlement agreement to resolve all claims arising from the breakdown of their marriage - Both sides were represented by legal counsel - Financial disclosure preceded the negotiation process but without formal valuations of certain properties - The appellant sought to resile from the settlement agreement within a month of its execution - The respondent moved for summary judgment - The motions judge made an order for summary judgment and dismissed the appellant's motion to have the settlement agreement set aside - The critical question raised on the appeal was, in the absence of formal valuations, could the motions judge determine whether the settlement agreement was in substantial compliance with the general objectives of the Divorce Act - The Ontario Court of Appeal answered "yes" to that question - See paragraphs 46 to 52.

Cases Noticed:

Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 372; 372 N.R. 239; 429 A.R. 26; 421 W.A.C. 26; 2008 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 27].

Papaschase Indian Band No. 136 v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Lameman et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.

Transamerica Life Insurance Co. of Canada v. Canada Life Assurance Co. et al. (1996), 2 O.T.C. 146; 28 O.R.(3d) 423 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 27].

Goudie et al. v. Ottawa (City), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 141; 301 N.R. 201; 170 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 27].

Corchis et al. v. KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne et al., [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Brusch v. Brusch, [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 334; 2007 ONCA 612, refd to. [para. 29].

Miglin v. Miglin, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303; 302 N.R. 201; 171 O.A.C. 201; 2003 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 32].

N.R. v. B.B. et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 295; 385 N.R. 85; 266 B.C.A.C. 1; 449 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 32].

Gordon (In Trust) v. Roebuck (1992), 57 O.A.C. 64; 9 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Stott v. Merit Investment Corp. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 174; 63 O.R.(2d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Hartshorne v. Hartshorne, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 550; 318 N.R. 1; 194 B.C.A.C. 161; 317 W.A.C. 161; 2004 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 52].

Statues Noticed:

Courts of Justice Act Regulations (Ont.), Family Law Rules, Reg. 114/99, rule 16(4.1) [para. 26]; rule 16(6) [paras. 17, 24].

Family Law Rules (Ont.) - see Courts of Justice Act Regulations (Ont.).

Counsel:

Uma Kancharla, for the appellant;

Erin Melnyck, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 6, 2015, before Gillese, van Rensburg and Miller, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Gillese, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, released on October 29, 2015.