The LAT has confirmed that a mutually agreeable signed release and SDN can be considered essential terms of a settlement in an accident benefits settlement.
In Robinson v AIG Insurance, 2024 ONLAT 23-0088800/AABS the parties reached an “agreement in principle” as to the monetary amount of a settlement, but could not agree on the terms of the release – specifically whether AIG’s insured could be included in the release. The emails from AIG’s counsel were clear that a mutually agreeable worded release was an essential term of the settlement.
When settlement discussions fell apart, the Applicant signed the Settlement Disclosure Notice, unilaterally crossing out the reference to the signed release. No release had ever been executed by the Applicant at the time of the hearing.
Co-Adjudicators Rebecca Hines and Dagmara Szczudlo concluded that Section 9.1(3) of Regulation 664 is clear that both a signed release and SDN are required components of a settlement agreement in an accident benefits settlement. They determined that the Applicant’s unilateral amendment to the SDN was evidence that the release was an essential term of the settlement that had not been agreed upon by the parties. As the Applicant had not signed an SDN or release in the form agreeable to both parties, there was no meeting of the minds on the essential terms and therefore no enforceable settlement.
The Applicant requested the alternative relief of an Order requiring removal of all references to AIG’s insured from the release. The LAT concluded that its authority was limited to a determination as to whether the parties reached a binding settlement and that there was no authority of the LAT to dictate the terms of the settlement.
This is a significant development in the evolution of settlement enforcement cases at the LAT which had previously only addressed enforcement of settlements where the Applicant had passed away prior to execution of the settlement documents.
LinkedIn