Judge says appellants reneged on settlement agreement not to name man as party in injury case
In injury proceedings arising from a physical altercation outside a bar, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ motion to add a man as a defendant, given that they had agreed not to do so in a settlement.
In Poirier v. 2621892 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCA 788, two appellants alleged injuries resulting from the late-night altercation with multiple individuals. A brief Snapchat video captured the incident.
In an action against the bar, some of its employees, and other alleged participants, the appellants claimed that those parties were liable for their injuries. The appellants moved to add Mr. Villeneuve, whom they identified as a potential participant, as a defendant.
Via their counsel’s exchange of emails, the appellants and Mr. Villeneuve arrived at a settlement agreement.
Under the agreement, Mr. Villeneuve would give an affidavit about his recollections of the night’s events and would cooperate as a trial witness, if needed.
Through two affidavits, Mr. Villeneuve referred to his and his friend’s alcohol consumption that evening, identified each individual in the video, and deposed that he did not strike the appellants.
According to the appellants’ counsel, Mr. Villeneuve’s affidavit evidence included inconsistencies and “demonstrably false” statements, as the video showed that he had struck an appellant.
On Oct. 14, 2025, Justice Andrew J. Goodman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied the appellants’ motion to name Mr. Villeneuve as a defendant in their action. The motion judge found the settlement agreement valid and enforceable.
The judge pointed out that the appellants had agreed in the settlement not to add Mr. Villeneuve as a defendant in exchange for his affidavits and his cooperation as a witness.
On appeal, the appellants did not deny that a valid and binding settlement agreement existed. However, they asserted that Mr. Villeneuve’s untruthful affidavits breached the agreement.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appeal court ordered the appellants to pay Mr. Villeneuve partial indemnity costs of $12,000, all inclusive.
The Ontario Court of Appeal acknowledged that producing a “demonstrably false” affidavit could breach the settlement, notwithstanding the agreement not to add Mr. Villeneuve as a defendant “no matter what his evidence” was.
However, the appeal court deferred to the motion judge’s interpretation of the settlement agreement and his finding that the appellants had reneged on the agreement by attempting to add Mr. Villeneuve as a defendant.
In reaching its decision, the appeal court saw no palpable and overriding error or extricable legal error on the part of the judge. The appeal court added that the appellants failed to meet their burden to establish that Mr. Villeneuve had breached the settlement agreement.
The appeal court noted that:
A recent decision might, if affirmed, offer Ontario Court of Appeal authority relating to social host liability and the breach of a duty of care to a guest at a party during which there has been underage drinking.
Last May, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a judge’s refusal to summarily dismiss a claim for damages for injuries against a nightclub operator and her summary judgment in favour of three others upon rejecting the injured party’s request to pierce the corporate veil.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
