Matthew Stroh represented the applicant in Perelli v. The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill, 2017 ONSC 6062, which succeeded with an application for summary judgment declaring that the Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill (“the City”) By-Law 135-14 is illegal. From 1 December 2010 to 30 November 2014, the applicant was employed as an elected municipal councillor for District 2 of the city. At the end of his term of office, the applicant was entitled to severance pay, but received only a deductible amount, which is reflected in city statutes 135-14 (“the statutes”), which allowed this deduction. The deduction represents the amount that the claimant charged to the city`s account when conducting an investigation. Justice Sutherland of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that the articles were invalid and void in bad faith. The statutes were adopted without the applicant. Read More The Federal Circuit overturned the District Court ruling, emergency order, and order to dismiss the application for the settlement agreement and was taken into federal custody with instructions to enforce the settlement agreement. The General Court also upheld the rejection of royalties and costs related to proceedings initiated prior to the settlement agreement, as Casper was not a successful party as a result of the agreement and, in any event, the settlement agreement provided that each party would bear its own costs.
The Tribunal found that other county courts agree that “a settlement involving all parties and claims challenges a lawsuit. . even if they contain enforceable terms. The Federal Circuit also concluded that a district court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement that would settle infringement claims when the enforcement claim was filed before the case was dismissed and the proceedings were pending. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court`s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), cited by the District Court, in which the parties executed a termination order that does not reserve jurisdiction over or refer to a prior settlement agreement to the District Court. When the defendant implemented the agreement, the district court had already rejected it by signing the agreement. The Kokkonen Supreme Court held that the District Court had lost subsidiary jurisdiction over the agreement, since the application for enforcement was filed at the end of the proceedings and the District Court did not “retain jurisdiction over the settlement” through its dismissal order. The District Court rejected Serta Simmons` motions to enforce the settlement agreement and set aside the emergency judgment, as the case was controversial on the basis of the settlement agreement. The Court argued that the case was not contested at the time of enforcement of the emergency judgment, as “the parties did not intend to immediately dismiss the appeals, but to keep the lawsuit alive until the parties had fulfilled their obligations under the settlement [agreement]”. The General Court also held that it did not have jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement as soon as the emergency order had been issued.
. . .