Mediation addresses property and support issues between former spouses
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has determined that the parties agreed on a binding and enforceable settlement concerning a family law matter’s support and property issues following mediation, with their counsel’s emails demonstrating a meeting of the minds.
In Grant v. Kirlew, 2025 ONSC 3291, the parties married in July 2006, had two children born in February 2009 and June 2014, and separated in October 2021.
The applicant mother made claims for child and spousal support and the equalization of the net family property and the sale of the family property, among other property claims. The respondent father also asked for the equalization of the net family property and the sale of the family property.
On Feb. 19, 2024, the parties, represented by their lawyers, participated in mediation involving the support and property issues.
After the mediation on Feb. 20, 2024, the mediator emailed the parties and their counsel to summarize the initial agreements concerning ongoing and retroactive support, the property issues, and costs. He asked the recipients to inform him if he had overlooked or misstated anything, as he would be drafting the separation agreement.
Two days later, in a follow-up email, the mediator listed the terms of the proposed memorandum of understanding. He noted that he would await the confirmation of the lawyers, who had jointly reviewed the terms that day, on whether they had settled the matter on those terms.
In the present proceeding, the mother moved for an order following the memorandum of understanding as amended by the parties.
The Ontario Superior Court granted the mother’s motion. The court issued a final order in line with the settlement terms outlined in the memorandum of understanding prepared by the mediator, including the amendments proposed and accepted by the parties.
First, the court ruled that the emails exchanged among the mediator and the parties’ lawyers showed a meeting of the minds. The court added that the parties’ following acts supported that they had reached a consensus:
Next, the court held that the parties reached a consensus on all the settlement agreement’s essential terms, as sufficiently demonstrated by the email thread and the parties’ post-mediation conduct. The court noted that the absence of formally prepared and signed minutes of settlement did not impact the agreement’s binding nature.
Lastly, the court considered it appropriate to enforce the agreement despite its noncompliance with the formal requirements, in line with the factors identified in the rulings in Geropoulos v. Geropoulos, 1982 CanLII 2020 (ON CA); Harris v. Harris, [1996] OJ No 2430 (QL); and Gorman v. Gorman, 2021 ONSC 2577.
