Small Claims Question

[friedrice]

Does anyone know what the penalty is if you don't show up for a pre-trial settlement conference? Intuition tells me that I could lose entirely, but the court stuff online doesn't come out and say that, instead saying that it could just be that the court nails me with some costs.

I have made a proposal to the court in advance, which the judge accepted, but apparently not the plaintiff. So the judge is aware that I am going to be making payments, whether I show or not.

Please don't comment unless you actually know the process. And yes, I don't need a lecture as to why I should go. I have something that it equally important to me at the exact same time.

Thanks for the help.

 

[fun-guy]

Where's Perry Mason when you need him?

 

[TeasePlease]

You can't lose entirely. A settlement conference is simply a meeting to try to settle the case, not to try the case itself.

The settlement offer can't be "accepted" by a judge in a civil matter. He/she can only recommend it to the plaintiff. The pre-trial judge will not be the same as the trial judge, so the "real" judge won't know what happened.

What is discussed at a pretrial is not supposed to be brought up at trial. But, if you don't show up, you can bet your ass that opposing counsel will tell the trial judge. It will just look very badly on you, because the inference will be drawn that you aren't acting in good faith.

I would strongly suggest that you attend the pretrial and make the same offer (that was previously rejected by the Plaintiff). Refuse to budge. It will only take a few minutes.

 

[friedrice]

Thanks Tease.

So if I don't show, then there is still a trial scheduled after no matter what? (I understand I'm setting myself up for a loss at the full amount). Like I can't lose the case because I didn't show?

Believe me, it's not a casual thing for me, I literally have a business meeting that is wayyyyy more important that can't be rescheduled.

 

[friedrice]

and make the same offer (that was previously rejected by the Plaintiff). Refuse to budge. It will only take a few minutes.

I have heard there is tremendous pressure on the plaintiff to accept a settlement. The amount the plaintiff is claiming from me is $5k, and I've offered $3k plus interest based on the plaintiff agreeing in writing to the reduced amount before we got to court. So I know the judge will side with me (or so I think).

 

[rld]

Small Brains Court, as it is commonly known, has, like the big courts, rules.

The settlement conferences are governed by rule 13 of the rules of Small Brains court.

Here are said rules:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-258-98/latest/

Attendance is mandatory.

But it looks like if this is your first miss the worst thing that will happen is that they will whack you for $100 in costs and set up a second settlement conference. Woe betide you if you miss the second one.

 

[friedrice]

If it is not too late, drop off a letter (or send a friend or employee) to both the Court and the plaintiff that apologizes sincerely for your absence and that your settlement offer still stands.

Just not showing up can incur costs

Thanks. What I can't figure out is why they can't simply send my settlement offer to the plaintiff that I proposed three months ago, and have them either "accept" or "reject" it without having a potentially unnecessary meeting.

 

[TeasePlease]

I have heard there is tremendous pressure on the plaintiff to accept a settlement. The amount the plaintiff is claiming from me is $5k, and I've offered $3k plus interest based on the plaintiff agreeing in writing to the reduced amount before we got to court. So I know the judge will side with me (or so I think).

Yes, some pretrial judges are notorious for browbeating litigants. The worst (best?) I've seen is a family court judge who just loves to rip off nuts in commercial list cases. But, they can't force you to do anything you don't want to do.

Let me ask, if you go to trial, will your position be $0 or $3K plus costs?

 

[friedrice]

Yes, some pretrial judges are notorious for browbeating litigants. The worst (best?) I've seen is a family court judge who just loves to rip off nuts in commercial list cases. But, they can't force you to do anything you don't want to do.

Let me ask, if you go to trial, will your position be $0 or $3K plus costs?

$3k plus costs, probably. Why?

 

[colt]

I have heard there is tremendous pressure on the plaintiff to accept a settlement. The amount the plaintiff is claiming from me is $5k, and I've offered $3k plus interest based on the plaintiff agreeing in writing to the reduced amount before we got to court. So I know the judge will side with me (or so I think).

I don't know anything about your case and I certainly don't know you. Having said that, I would not bank on there being "tremendous pressure on the plaintiff to accept a settlement". Deputy judges do like to see settlements but they have also seen numerous defendants who, for reasons known only to them, think it is perfectly acceptable to incurr a debt, not pay it, and then hope that the time and aggravation of enforcing the debt will convince the creditor to take a percentage on the dollar. If the merits of the debt are open to dispute than yes a judge will likely pressure the plaintiff to accept a reasonable settlement offer. If the merits are not in dispute and you don't show up the judge is not going to advocate on your behalf - he or she is simply going to order costs against you and order a second settlement conference to be scheduled. A judge is never, ever going to "side with you" - they are going to advise the parties of the risks of not settling. No judge is going to have any sympathy, or support, for a party who does not bother to show up at a mandatory appearance.

I am a little unclear why you would not have simply written to the planitiff and/or the court and requested an adjournment of the settlement conference, they are granted farily routinely especially if it the first conference.

Like I said, I don't know you, but my gut tells me you are just a guy who doesn't want to pay his bills. You sat on this debt until the plaintiff went to court and now you are banking on the court system to take your side and convince the plaintiff to take less than they are actually owed. You know you owe the money and that is why you can't be bothered attending the settlement conference. If I was you I would seriously rethink your opinion that a judge is going to "take your side" becuase I guarantee you they have seen this routine before.

 

[rld]

Thanks. What I can't figure out is why they can't simply send my settlement offer to the plaintiff that I proposed three months ago, and have them either "accept" or "reject" it without having a potentially unnecessary meeting.

The reason settlement conferences exist is because they greatly enhance the possibility of a settlement being achieved. It is a lot more effective process to have the parties there and able to discuss the merits of the case with a neutral and hopefully knowledgeable third party. That is one of the reasons that mediation is so successful in civil litigation.

 

[colt]

Thanks. What I can't figure out is why they can't simply send my settlement offer to the plaintiff that I proposed three months ago, and have them either "accept" or "reject" it without having a potentially unnecessary meeting.

Because, believe it or not, the courts have been involved in one or two of these disptues before. And their experience has been that you cannot rely upon parties to negotiate and resolve their differences outside of court - if the parties could do this they would have done it before filing a Plaintiff's claim. It is the cost and inconvenience of the court system, and more importantly, the potential for further costs and inconvenience that force parties to start using their heads and negotiate reasonably. Judges have found that the best way to get parties to settle is to get them in a room together, infront of a judge who can tell them what will and what will not likely fly in court, with the potential of having to come back to court again if they do not get the matter settled there and then.

 

[friedrice]

I don't disagree with you, I just mean the particular situation of saving the settlement conference if the plaintiff agrees with the defendant's offer. In this case I made a formal offer through the court to settle, and if the plaintiff agreed, then presto, binding agreement without needing to have a settlement conference. That part of the process would be more efficient, methinks.

 

[friedrice]

Like I said, I don't know you, but my gut tells me you are just a guy who doesn't want to pay his bills. You sat on this debt until the plaintiff went to court and now you are banking on the court system to take your side and convince the plaintiff to take less than they are actually owed.

Whoa. You don't know me and you don't know the situation, so save your deadbeat speech for someone else. Obviously I'm not going to provide the actual details of the case on a public board, but I'm very cognizant of what I owe and am prepared to make good. What I do not owe is the full amount the plaintiff is claiming.

 

[colt]

I don't disagree with you, I just mean the particular situation of saving the settlement conference if the plaintiff agrees with the defendant's offer. In this case I made a formal offer through the court to settle, and if the plaintiff agreed, then presto, binding agreement without needing to have a settlement conference. That part of the process would be more efficient, methinks.

Nothing is stopping you from trying to settle before the settlement conference. You send the plaintiff an offer in writing and if the plaintiff accepts the matter is settled. You write to the court, on consent, advise that the matter is settled and they will cancel the settlement conference. You don't need to send the offer through the court, you just send it directly to the plaintiff. You just have to make sure that the offer is clear and comprehensive (ie. deals with amounts being paid for damages, interest, costs, taxes and disbursements, and the time in which payments are to be made). You also have to be sure that the plaintiff is agreeing to all your terms or, at the very least, that you in the plaintiff are in agreement on all terms. The last thing you want is to think you have entered into a settlement only to find out the plaintiff thinks there is still something to argue abotu.

 

[friedrice]

You can come to a settlement agreement outside of court or a settlement meeting. IF the plaintiff beleives you will come good. Otherwise he wants to make sure that the agreement is formalized in an Order so that if you stop paying he has a judgement he can enforce and not start all over again.

And frankly, if you can't make it to a meeting scheduled months in advance then I wouldn't trust you either. If you want to "settle" I'm SURE that he'd drop the case for payment in full of the $3k you are offering. But you are proposing "payments" then I would not trust you either at this point. Nothing personal against YOU, just from a prudent POV.

Why would me in front of the judge as apposed to a formalized order from the court to pay be more effective in making me pay? Courts have garnishment power, one can't escape it. So why would stern looks and admonishments from a judge be more effective in making me pay, especially when I have already proposed a settlement? (!) That's my question.

 

[friedrice]

Nothing is stopping you from trying to settle before the settlement conference.

As noted, I did that, when I filed my defence. Court acknowledged it and ordered me to pay until the settlement conference. The conference was not cancelled, so I'm assuming the plaintiff rejected the offer, though I don't know that's true based on what people have posted.

 

[rld]

Why would me in front of the judge as apposed to a formalized order from the court to pay be more effective in making me pay? Courts have garnishment power, one can't escape it. So why would stern looks and admonishments from a judge be more effective in making me pay, especially when I have already proposed a settlement? (!) That's my question.

If the plaintiff had accepted your offer, I suspect this thread would not be happening. If you think he will take your proposal, phone and guy up and find out.

 

[69Shooter]

Whoa. You don't know me and you don't know the situation, so save your deadbeat speech for someone else. Obviously I'm not going to provide the actual details of the case on a public board, but I'm very cognizant of what I owe and am prepared to make good. What I do not owe is the full amount the plaintiff is claiming.

Your mistake, in this case, was in not starting your OP by saying you "had a friend...". You could then have provided all of the actual details of the case without fear of exposing yourself!

 

[friedrice]

Friedrice said as much here; "I have made a proposal to the court in advance, which the judge accepted, but apparently not the plaintiff. "

He doesn't get it at all. He doesn't get that the Judge cannot "accept" a proposed settlement.

I meant the client accepting the settlement via the courts. The settlement offer was mailed to the plaintiff, he can easily notify the courts he either accepts or rejects it without the conference!