The case in plain terms
You settled your lawsuit, signed the papers, and now you regret it. Can you go back to court and undo the deal?
In Martin v. Mississauga (City), the Court of Appeal for Ontario said no on the facts before it. An employee sued her former employer, the City of Mississauga, for wrongful dismissal and other claims. She started with a lawyer but became self-represented. On March 14, 2024, the parties, together with her former law firm, entered into a Settlement Agreement (para. 1).
She later brought a motion under r. 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set the agreement aside and let her lawsuit continue (para. 2). The motion judge dismissed it. She found a valid and binding settlement that the employee had entered into "knowingly and voluntarily" (para. 3). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal (para. 4).
Citation and where to read it
Martin v. Mississauga (City), 2026 ONCA 753 (Court of Appeal for Ontario, Coroza, Dawe and Brownstone JJ.A.; released October 26, 2026), on appeal from an order of Justice Byrdena MacNeil of the Superior Court of Justice.
Official reasons: Court of Appeal for Ontario (Lexum)
CanLII: 2026 ONCA 753
What the Court decided
Ordinary litigation stress is not duress
The employee argued duress: when she signed, she faced a charging order from her former lawyers, feared a large costs award if she refused to settle, and said she lacked time to get independent legal advice. She had tried to consult another lawyer but could not retain one or get advice on the settlement at that time (para. 12).
The motion judge found no evidence that anyone had subjected her to "illegitimate pressure" to sign (para. 13). She described the duress claim as a "bald assertion" and concluded that "the issue of costs was a reality of litigation and there was nothing in the evidence that suggested anything other than the ordinary stress felt by a litigant" (para. 13). The Court of Appeal saw "no error" in that treatment (para. 13).
Problems known before signing did not undo the deal
The employee also alleged fraud and non-disclosure, including that City officials misstated the end date of a police investigation into her conduct (para. 14). The motion judge found any discrepancies were "not material to the Settlement Agreement" and that she knew of them when she signed. She had received the police disclosure in December 2022, raised the discrepancies in a June 2023 motion, and "nevertheless chose to settle in March 2024 rather than continue the litigation" (para. 15). The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere (para. 16).
Delay: left open
The respondents argued that the motion, brought about a year after signing, came too late, and the motion judge accepted that in the alternative (para. 17). The Court of Appeal did not need to decide the point. It added that its reasons should not "be taken as endorsing the motion judge’s brief conclusion that delay provided an independent basis to dismiss the motion" (para. 18).
Fresh evidence about legal advice failed
On appeal, the employee asked to file a letter about a lawyer she consulted shortly before signing. The letter said that lawyer did not represent her in the negotiations or give independent legal advice on the settlement (para. 21). The Court refused to admit it.
First, its author, another lawyer at the same firm, had not spoken with her, so the letter "reflects information and belief rather than first-hand knowledge" (para. 23). Second, and more significantly, "the proposed evidence could not have affected the result" (para. 24). The motion judge had focused on the employee's understanding that settling would end her lawsuit, not on independent legal advice (paras. 24-25). As quoted by the Court, the motion judge found the terms "clear and unambiguous", that the employee was "not rushed to sign", and that "She had 2.5 months in which to do so" (para. 24).
The appeal was dismissed with costs of $10,000 (para. 27).
What changed
The Court did not announce a new test. It upheld the motion judge's findings and shows how hard it is to reopen a signed settlement: costs pressure alone is not duress, and known, immaterial discrepancies are not grounds (paras. 13, 15). Whether delay alone defeats such a motion remains open (para. 18).
The rule the employee relied on, r. 59.06(2), lets a party who seeks to have an order set aside or varied "on the ground of fraud or of facts arising or discovered after it was made" bring a motion in the proceeding.
Who this affects
Employees and employers settling wrongful dismissal or other employment lawsuits
Self-represented people negotiating with a represented party
Anyone in a civil lawsuit who settles at or after a settlement conference
Litigants in a fee dispute with a former lawyer while settlement talks are under way
Practical takeaways
Get advice before you sign, not after. The motion judge stressed that the employee had time to read the documents and the opportunity to seek legal advice (para. 24).
Raise known problems before you settle. Here, issues she already knew about, and that were not material to the deal, did not undo it (para. 15).
Stress is not evidence. Fear of a costs award is part of litigation. A duress claim needs evidence of illegitimate pressure (para. 13).
Move promptly. The Court left delay open, but the motion judge treated it as an alternative reason to dismiss (paras. 17-18).
New evidence must count. Second-hand letters that could not change the outcome will not be admitted (paras. 23-24).
FAQ
Can I cancel a settlement agreement after signing it in Ontario?
Only on a recognized legal ground, proven with evidence. Here, the motion judge found no evidence of unconscionability, fraud, misrepresentation, misapprehension of material fact, or any other ground that would invalidate the agreement, and the Court of Appeal found no error (paras. 3, 20).
Is feeling pressured to settle the same as duress?
Not by itself. Here, costs were "a reality of litigation", and there was no evidence of illegitimate pressure, only "the ordinary stress felt by a litigant" (para. 13).
What if I did not get independent legal advice before signing?
In this case it made no difference. The decision rested on the employee's understanding that settling would end her lawsuit and on her opportunity to get legal advice, not on whether she actually received it (paras. 24-25).
What if I learn something new after I settle?
Rule 59.06(2)(a) allows a motion to set aside or vary an order "on the ground of fraud or of facts arising or discovered after it was made". Here, the discrepancies were known before signing and were not material, so the motion failed (para. 15).
Can I be ordered to pay costs if my challenge fails?
Yes, that is a real risk. Here, the appeal was dismissed with $10,000 in costs payable to the respondent (para. 27).
Book a consultation
Francis Lawyers has served Ottawa since 1974 and specializes in civil litigation, including commercial disputes. Whether you are weighing a settlement offer or questioning one you already signed, we will review the agreement, the timeline and your options. Learn how the litigation process works in Ontario and how long a civil lawsuit takes in Ottawa, then book a consultation or call (613) 226-1011.
This article is general information, not legal advice. It summarizes a published Ontario Court of Appeal decision; outcomes depend on your facts and documents, so consult a lawyer about your situation. Published October 27, 2026. Written by the lawyers of Francis Mehr LLP.
