Category: Settlement

The claimant sought to dispute various accident benefits; the insurer argued that the claimant had entered into a binding settlement. Adjudicator Watt concluded that the claimant had entered into a binding settlement. He held that the evidence was clear that the intentions of the parties was a full and final release of all benefits claimed rather than a partial settlement. He held that there was no evidence of a capacity issue. Finally, he wrote that the Tribunal did not have equitable jurisdiction to enforce rescission of the settlement had it been unconscionable.

Following a full and final settlement of the claim, the claimant sought further payment for a treatment plan that had been in dispute as part of the initial LAT application. She had not rescinded the settlement within the two day cooling off period. Vice Chair Flude concluded that the settlement amount included the payment of the disputed treatment plan, and that the claimant was not entitled to additional payment of that same treatment plan. He reviewed the language of the SDN and the Release, which made clear that the settlement was for all present and future accident benefits claims.

The claimant, represented by counsel, entered into a settlement agreement with respect to LAT applications for disputed entitlement to various benefits. The claimant executed a full and final release and a settlement disclosure notice, and the LAT was notified that the claimant was withdrawing his applications. The claimant subsequently informed the LAT that he wished to stop the settlement process and that he no longer wished for his legal counsel to represent him. He sought to have the settlement set aside on the basis that it was improvident as he was placed under duress and lacked capacity to understand and consider the settlement documents due to mental illness. Adjudicator Maedel held the claimant was statute barred from rescinding the settlement. The claimant failed to establish that he lacked mental capacity to enter into the settlement, or that he was placed under duress at the material time. The settlement was valid and the claimant failed to rescind it within the two business day cooling off period.

The claimant sought to enforce a purported settlement with the insurer. The insurer resisted the claim and asserted that a Settlement Disclosure Notice was not signed. On review of FSCO jurisprudence, Adjudicator Christopher Ferguson adopted the reasoning and determined that a SDN is necessary for a binding settlement. The claimant’s claim was dismissed.