Victoria Edwards, a personal injury lawyer with Siskinds LLP, was recently published in Law360.
This article was originally published by Law360™ Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
Read the full article below.
Victoria Edwards – Law360™ Canada – Posted: November 12, 2025
In Rajic v. Spivak, 2025 ONCA 363, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to address a dispute arising from a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and his former legal counsel. This decision underscores the importance of clarity in settlement terms, the role of post-judgment interest and the procedural responsibilities of counsel in finalizing settlements.
Background
The appellant/plaintiff, Zeljko Rajic, sued his former lawyers for how they handled a personal injury claim. On Nov. 6, 2023, the parties reached a settlement agreement. The respondents agreed to pay $100,000 for all damages including prejudgment interest, plus costs as agreed upon or assessed. The settlement did not expressly mention post-judgment interest.
Following the agreement, the parties struggled to finalize the settlement. They could not agree on the amount of costs or the working of the release. The appellant insisted that the release include a term requiring the respondent to pay post-judgment interest from the date of settlement. The respondents disagreed, arguing that post-judgment interest was not part of the deal. As a result, the appellant refused to sign the release and the respondents withheld payment of the settlement funds.
The motion decision
Instead of seeking a costs assessment hearing, the appellant brought a motion seeking judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement and an order for post-judgment interest.
The motion judge held that s. 129(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the legislation dealing with post-judgment interest, applies where the court has made an order for payment of funds and the payment has not been made at all, or not in a timely fashion. Because the parties settled the case and no order had been made, the motion judge found that the appellant was not entitled to post-settlement interest under s. 129.
The plaintiff appealed.
The appeal decision
The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge. There was no error in her analysis.
On appeal, the appellant also submitted that the motion judge erred in failing to order payment of interest on the costs. This submission was rejected.
The Nov. 6, 2023, settlement required the respondents to pay costs as agreed upon or assessed. By February 2024, it was clear the parties did not agree on the quantum of costs and their positions were far apart.
Since then, the appellant has taken no steps to have the issue of costs determined. He could have obtained a date for an assessment of his costs or had one of the judges involved in the case from the pretrial conferences fix the costs. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the onus was on the appellant to move the issue forward. It was unreasonable to expect the respondents to pay interest on costs that had not been determined.
Section 129(4) of the Courts of Justice Act, which deals with interest on costs, is payable from the date of any assessment of those costs. Because the costs remained outstanding, no post-judgment interest was payable.
Conclusion
There was no error in the motion judge’s analysis. The appeal was dismissed.
Takeaways for lawyers
This case illustrates several important themes for lawyers negotiating and finalizing settlements, including:
- Ensuring that the settlement terms are clear. All material terms, including interest, costs and timelines for payment, should be clearly spelled out in the agreement. Ambiguity could lead to unnecessary litigation and delay resolution.
- Post-judgment interest requires a court order pursuant to s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act.
- Procedural responsibility matters. Lawyers must be proactive in moving unresolved issues forward. Delays or inaction can undermine a party’s position and affect entitlements such as interest.
Victoria Edwards is an associate personal injury lawyer at Siskinds, The Law Firm. She provides top-quality legal services by prioritizing clarity and accessibility when explaining legal options to her clients. Her practice includes motor vehicle litigation, short- and long-term disability claims, slips/trips and falls, and dog bites. She attended Western Law, where she worked and volunteered in the legal clinic. She works primarily out of Sarnia, Ont., for clients across southwestern Ontario.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at [email protected] or call 905-415-5811.