eyes of an objective person. There is no commercial custom or
usage in settlement agreements generally or in the settlement of
supply arrangements in particular that can be appealed to here
by the plaintiff.
 The simple fact of the matter is that the plaintiff stipulated
the sum it was prepared to accept and did not seek to allocate
it in any way. It was implicitly an “all in” negotiation and the language used was strongly indicative of that common assumption.
 The settlement amount was simply a blended, unallocated
lump sum amount. Such settlements are common, everyday
occurrences. They offer a useful way for the parties to put aside
disagreements about the value of particular issues in order to
achieve a global settlement that each is able to find acceptable for
their own different reasons. The defendants had no reason to go
behind the plaintiff’s offer to ask what matters the plaintiff had
considered in making it or how the plaintiff allocated it. It cannot
be said that they took advantage of an obvious error in failing to
 The plaintiff’s motion would place this court on a very
slippery slope if successful. Finality and certainty of settlements
requires the parties to consider all of the ramifications of an
agreement before committing to it.
 The motion was dismissed and the order dismissing the
action with prejudice upon payment of the $7 million amount
Smith v. The Attorney General of Ontario et al.
[Indexed as: Smith v. Ontario (Attorney General)]
2018 ONSC 993
Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, Warkentin R.S.J., Swinton and
Horkins JJ. February 21, 2018
Crown — Crown attorneys — Immunity — Prosecutorial immunity
barring cross-claim by police defendants against Crown attorneys for
contribution and indemnity based on negligent provision of legal advice
in course of criminal investigation.
Following a “Mr. Big” police undercover operation, the plaintiff was charged with
first degree murder in a cold case related to his neighbour’s murder. He was ultimately acquitted. He sued the police defendants for negligent investigation and other
torts. He also sued the Attorney General and the Crown attorneys who provided the
police with legal advice during the investigation, alleging that the Crown attorneys
were negligent in their provision of legal advice. The police defendants cross-claimed