What is the test for re-negotiating a settlement?

In Gariepy v. Shell Oil Co., [2002] O.J. No. 4022 (Sup Ct. Just.), Nordheimer J., after referring to the remarks cited above, stated at paragraph 44: It is not the function of the court in reviewing a settlement to reopen the settlement or to attempt to re-negotiate it in the hope of improving its terms. Simply put, the court must decide either to approve the settlement or to reject it. Similarly, in deciding whether to approve the settlement, the court must be wary of second-guessing the parties in terms of the settlement that they have reached. Just because the court might have approached the resolution from a different perspective, or might have reached a resolution on a different basis, is not a reason to reject the proposed settlement unless the court is of the view that the settlement is inadequate or unfair or unreasonable.