Stamatopoulos et al. v. Harris et al., 2014 ONSC 6313

• Judge: Leitch, Swinton and Nordheimer, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: October 30, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2014 ONSC 6313;(2014), 330 O.A.C. 28 (DC)

Stamatopoulos v. Harris (2014), 330 O.A.C. 28 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.008

Stamatis (Steve) Stamatopoulos, Nikolaos Stamatopoulos, Christopher Stamatopoulos, Kyriakos Stamatopoulos and Stephanie Clarke (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Richard J. Harris, The Regional Municipality of Durham and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario as Represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario and State Farm Insurance (defendants/respondents in appeal)

(444/13; 2014 ONSC 6313)

Indexed As: Stamatopoulos et al. v. Harris et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Leitch, Swinton and Nordheimer, JJ.

October 30, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by Harris, was seriously injured when Harris lost control of the vehicle and left the road. The plaintiff brought an action for damages against, inter alia, Harris and the Regional Municipality having jurisdiction over the road. The plaintiff and Harris executed a "Mary Carter Agreement" settling Harris' liability. Harris remained a party to the action for purposes of a cross-claim. The existence of the Agreement was disclosed to the non-settling defendants, including the Municipality, but not the terms of the Agreement. A Master ordered disclosure of an edited copy of the Agreement to the Municipality. Only the confidential terms of the Agreement that did not fall within the scope of the changed litigation landscape were excepted. The Master's order was affirmed on appeal ([2013] O.T.C. Uned. 4143). The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 4590

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Settlement documents and other agreements - [See Practice - Topic 9851.1 ].

Practice - Topic 9851.1

Settlements - Mary Carter or Pierringer agreements - The plaintiff, a passenger in a vehicle driven by Harris, was seriously injured when Harris lost control of the vehicle and left the road - The plaintiff brought an action for damages against, inter alia, Harris and the Regional Municipality having jurisdiction over the road - The plaintiff and Harris executed a "Mary Carter Agreement" (MCA) settling Harris' liability - Harris remained a party to the action for purposes of a cross-claim - The existence of the MCA was disclosed to the non-settling defendants, including the Municipality, but not the terms of the MCA - A Master ordered disclosure of an edited copy of the MCA to the Municipality - Only the confidential terms of the MCA that did not fall within the scope of the changed litigation landscape were excepted - The Ontario Divisional Court affirmed disclosure of the MCA - The court stated that "Once a MCA or like agreement is entered into, both the existence of the MCA and its terms must be disclosed to the other parties and to the court. If there is any issue that one or more clauses in the MCA should not have been disclosed, because the disclosure of those specific clauses are not relevant to the principles that require the MCA to be disclosed (recognizing that the MCA is prima facie privileged), the disclosing party is entitled to edit the MCA for disclosure purposes subject to any order of the court." - The court disagreed that there were conflicting authorities that required disclosure of only the existence of an MCA - See paragraphs 1 to 22.

Practice - Topic 9867

Settlements - Disclosure - [See Practice - Topic 9851.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Laudon v. Roberts et al. (2009), 249 O.A.C. 72; 2009 ONCA 383, refd to. [para. 8].

J. & M. Chartrand Realty Ltd. v. Martin, [1981] O.J. No. 739 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 9].

Bodnar v. Home Insurance Co., [1987] O.J. No. 2365 (Gen. Div. Master), refd to. [para. 9].

Pettey v. Avis Car Inc. (1993), 13 O.R.(3d) 725 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 11].

Aecon Buildings v. Brampton (City) et al., [2010] O.A.C. Uned. 727 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Noonan et al. v. Alpha-Vico et al., [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 2720 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 13].

Moore v. Bertuzzi et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 597 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 13].

Moore v. Bertuzzi et al., [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 3248 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

Sable Offshore Energy Inc. et al. v. Ameron International Corp. et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 623; 446 N.R. 35; 332 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1052 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

G.A. Bougadis and B. Goryayev, for the appellants;

S. Persaud, for the respondent, The Regional Municipality of Durham;

No one appearing for the respondent, Richard J. Harris.

This appeal was heard on October 22, 2014, at Toronto, Ontario, before Leitch, Swinton and Nordheimer, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court.

On October 30, 2014, Nordheimer, J., released the following judgment for the Court.