Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The dispute arose from unpaid invoices related to construction work, following a lien action and negotiated settlement.

• A motion was brought to enforce Minutes of Settlement under Rule 49.09 after the defendant delayed payment.

• The court confirmed that a binding settlement agreement had been reached on all essential terms.

• Despite a Full and Final Release, the court held interest was still recoverable for delayed payment.

• The plaintiff was awarded the principal amount and contractual interest from the agreed due date.

• No ambiguity or credible dispute was found to justify non-payment or delay by the defendant.

Background and agreement to settle

Coreslab Structures (Ont) Inc. initiated a lien action against Vitmont Holdings (Oak Ridges) Inc., seeking $474,872.93 plus interest and costs for unpaid construction work. The lien was vacated by Vitmont through the posting of security. In January 2024, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement, which required Coreslab to complete additional work and rectify deficiencies. Upon completion and issuance of a Certificate of Substantial Performance (CSP), Vitmont agreed to pay all outstanding amounts on both the original and newly submitted invoices.

A Full and Final Mutual Release was also executed alongside the Minutes, specifying that the settlement included all claims for damages, interest, and costs related to the action. Coreslab completed the work and submitted its final invoices. The CSP was published on July 9, 2024, triggering a payment deadline of September 30, 2024. Coreslab issued multiple reminders, indicating the amount due was $593,522.93.

Dispute over interest and enforcement motion

Vitmont did not make payment by the September deadline. On November 11, 2024, Coreslab revised its position and sought to add interest, increasing its claim to over $716,000. Vitmont objected, arguing that the original Minutes of Settlement and the Full and Final Mutual Release barred any interest claims, and accused Coreslab of trying to unilaterally alter the settlement.

Coreslab filed a motion under Rule 49.09 seeking judgment for the higher amount. It later revised the claimed interest figure, ultimately seeking $668,346.98 including interest calculated from the date of invoice default. Vitmont responded that there was no agreement to pay interest, and that enforcement should be limited to the previously acknowledged amount of $593,522.93.

Court’s analysis and findings

Justice de Sa applied the two-step test under Rule 49.09, considering whether a binding agreement had been reached and, if so, whether it should be enforced. The court found no dispute over the essential terms of the agreement. Coreslab had completed its work, submitted invoices, and met all preconditions to trigger Vitmont’s payment obligation.

The judge rejected the notion that the Full and Final Mutual Release allowed Vitmont to delay payment indefinitely without interest consequences. The clause did not preclude interest from accruing due to post-agreement default. Coreslab was found to be entitled to interest from the payment due date of September 30, 2024, at the contractual rate.

Conclusion and result

The court granted judgment to Coreslab for the principal amount of $593,522.93 plus interest from September 30, 2024, thereby enforcing the settlement agreement. The court invited costs submissions and provided a schedule for written arguments. The decision reinforces the enforceability of clear settlement terms and affirms that a general release does not override the right to interest where payment is unreasonably delayed.