COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Wilson v. Northwest Value Partners Inc., 2016 ONCA 253

DATE: 20160406
DOCKET: C60943
Sharpe, Juriansz and Roberts JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Brian Wilson
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Northwest Value Partners Inc. and Northwest International Healthcare
Properties Real Estate Investment Trust
Defendants (Appellants)

Jonathan Cocker, for the appellants

Jeff C. Hopkins and Justin Tetreault, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: April 4, 2016
On appeal from the judgment of Justice M.D. Faleta of the Superior Court of
Justice, dated July 23, 2015.

ENDORSEMENT
[1]

The appellants have failed to demonstrate any ground on which this court

could interfere with the motion judges order enforcing the terms of the settlement
agreement.

Page: 2
[2]

There was clear evidence to support the finding that the parties settled the

respondents claim for payment of amounts owed to him upon his termination of
employment.
[3]

We do not agree with the submission that the motion judge erred by

enforcing the settlement in the face of the respondents alleged post-termination

breach of the non-compete clause in his employment contract.
[4]

The motion judges determination that the settlement did not include any

claim by the appellants for that alleged breach was entirely reasonable. The
alleged breach of the non-compete clause was simply not on the table at the
mediation. The motion judge did not err by finding that the boiler-plate preamble
clause reference that the agreement fully and finally settled all matters among
the parties could not reasonably be interpreted to embrace the appellants
subsequent claim for breach of the non-compete clause. Moreover, as the motion
judge pointed out, as the non-compete clause had 1 1 months to run at the time
of the settlement, it makes no sense to suggest that the appellants could have
intended to relieve the respondent of his non-compete obligation.
[5]

The motion judges decision as to costs attracts deference on appeal and

the appellants have failed to persuade us that leave to appeal costs should be
granted.

Page: 3
[6]

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent

fixed in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.