Background
The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in a panel composed of Roberts, George and Favreau JJ.A., dismissed an appeal by Evan Poirier, Leo Poirier, Mila Marek and Catherine Poirier, also identified in the proceeding as Mila Maric Poirier and Cathy Poirier. The appeal concerned an order of Justice Andrew J. Goodman of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 14, 2025, with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 5753. The appeal was heard on October 26, 2026, under docket COA-25-CV-1516. Jillian Van Allen represented the appellants; Jeffery Beleskey and Emma Madsen represented Nick Villeneuve. Kristina Wagram appeared for several other respondents but made no written or oral submissions.
Evan and Leo Poirier were injured in a physical altercation involving several people outside a bar late at night. They sued the bar, some employees and others whom they alleged were involved and liable for their injuries. A very short Snapchat video recorded the altercation. The appellants identified Villeneuve as a possible participant and moved to add him as a defendant.
Before that dispute was resolved, counsel exchanged emails and reached a settlement. Villeneuve agreed to provide an affidavit describing what he knew or remembered about the events and to cooperate as a trial witness if necessary. His counsel advised that he would say he was not involved in the altercation. The appellants agreed that, “no matter what his evidence is,” they would not add him as a defendant.
The Court’s Holding
Villeneuve supplied two affidavits. He addressed the altercation, his and his friend’s alcohol consumption, and the identities of people in the video to the best of his ability. He deposed that he did not strike the appellants. The appellants nevertheless maintained that his affidavits contained “demonstrably false” statements, relying principally on an affidavit from their counsel, who reviewed the video and identified asserted inconsistencies. In particular, she disputed his statements that two men were already on the ground when he arrived outside the bar and that he did not hit one of the appellants.
The motion judge found that the agreement’s terms were “unequivocal and without qualification,” concluded that Villeneuve had complied with his obligations, and found that the appellants had “reneged on the agreement” by seeking to add him. He allowed Villeneuve’s motion to enforce the settlement and dismissed the appellants’ motion to add him as a defendant.
The Court of Appeal accepted that producing a demonstrably false affidavit could breach the settlement despite the broad “no matter what his evidence is” language. It explained that the phrase accommodated evidence unfavourable or unhelpful to the appellants; it did not condone demonstrably false evidence. But the appellants bore the burden of proving breach and did not meet it. Their concerns arose from reassessing evidence already in their possession when they settled, not from newly discovered proof of untruthfulness. There was no evidence clearly showing that Villeneuve struck either appellant, and his second affidavit corrected his account to acknowledge one man on the ground when he arrived. Counsel’s opinion did not satisfy the burden, nor was it enough merely to raise arguable issues for trial.
The Court also rejected the alternative argument that, if falsity could not be determined, Villeneuve should be added and left to plead the settlement as a defence. The motion judge’s interpretation of the agreement and finding that the appellants reneged attracted deference absent palpable and overriding error or an extricable legal error reviewed for correctness. The Court cited Crosstown Transit Constructors v. METROLINX, 2019 ONCA 240, at para. 11, and Remedy Drug Store Co. v. Farnham, 2015 ONCA 576, at para. 59. Finding no such error, it concluded that the appellants received what they bargained for and dismissed the appeal. Villeneuve was awarded all-inclusive partial-indemnity costs of $12,000 against the appellants.
Key Takeaways
- A promise not to add a defendant “no matter what his evidence is” does not necessarily protect demonstrably false affidavit evidence.
- The party alleging breach must prove it; counsel’s opinion and arguable trial issues were insufficient here.
- Reassessing a video already known when the settlement was made did not establish newly discovered falsity.
- Contract interpretation and the reneging finding received deference, subject to palpable and overriding error or an extricable correctness-reviewed legal error.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes an unfavourable affidavit from a demonstrably false one while enforcing the bargain actually made. It shows that a party seeking to escape such a settlement needs evidence proving breach, not merely a competing interpretation of material available before the agreement.
The ruling is tied to this record and evidentiary record. It does not establish that every disputed affidavit defeats enforcement, or that falsity can never justify adding a settling witness as a defendant.