In Lucuta v. Stevens, 2025 ONSC 1576, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled against a woman who sought to reopen her medical malpractice case years after reaching a settlement. The plaintiff alleged she accepted the agreement under duress—but the court found no evidence to support her claims.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a knee injury the plaintiff sustained in 2010, for which she was treated by two doctors at Grand River Hospital in Kitchener, Ontario. Four years later, she launched a lawsuit, alleging negligent treatment and lack of informed consent.
She also pursued a professional conduct complaint against the doctors with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. In June 2019, on the same day a hearing was held by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, the doctors’ lawyer sent her a settlement offer.
By August 2019, she had accepted the proposal and later signed documents formally ending the legal proceedings—acknowledging in writing that she was doing so freely and without coercion.
Plaintiff Later Claims Duress
In 2023, four years after the case was dismissed, the plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the settlement. She claimed she had been under economic pressure and faced threats and coercion that rendered the agreement invalid.
The defendants maintained that the plaintiff entered into the agreement voluntarily and had every opportunity to seek legal counsel.
Court Finds No Evidence of Coercion
The court firmly rejected the plaintiff’s motion. Key reasons included:
- The plaintiff had legal training and participated effectively in the legal process up to the point of settlement.
- There was no documentary evidence of coercion, threats, or improvidence.
- Communications from the defendants’ lawyer were professional and encouraged her to obtain independent legal advice.
- Her acceptance letter and release forms made no mention of discomfort or pressure.
The judge also noted that affidavits submitted by the plaintiff were vague, uncorroborated, and written years after the fact—lacking the credibility required to reopen the matter.
How The Plaintiff Fell Short
Ultimately, the court emphasized that the plaintiff avoided a trial and the financial risks that come with losing a lawsuit. The settlement offered clear benefits, and there was no indication it was unfair or unreasonable.
At Malpractice Check, we are dedicated to providing honest, unbiased opinions on medical malpractice concerns. Whether you’re seeking peace of mind or preparing to present your case to a lawyer, our trusted experts are here to help you navigate the complexities of healthcare errors with professionalism, compassion, and integrity. Contact us today to learn more.