You may recall from my prior post entitled Duty to Immediately Disclose any Settlement that Changes the Litigation Landscape, wherein I outlined the case where the Court of Appeal confirmed that a party waiting three weeks to disclose a settlement to the remaining non-settling defendants was too long: the immediate requirement meant right away (ie: the next day).
Given the draconian by-product of the failure to disclose a settlement, that being a permanent stay of the proceeding, it is not surprising that this issue was once again before the appellate court. However, as before, the result of today’s decision was the same: the appellate court upheld the stay of the action in circumstances where the settling parties failed to disclose the settlement for six months. The court said it was immaterial that there was no actual prejudice to the non-settling parties during this interval.
During mediations this can become a live issue, especially where there is one party that doesn’t want to settle, and some of the others do. Often those that want to exchange offers desire to exclude the recalcitrant party or parties from the discussions, which is understandable and acceptable in the right circumstances; however, in the event the chatting parties reach a resolution (in private), they must remember that within the next few days, that settlement should be shared with the non-negotiating parties, or else there is a high risk that the entire action will being stayed.
Poirier v. Logan, 2022 ONCA 350
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca350/2022onca350.html