Does a binding settlement agreement between counsel and plaintiff need to be enforceable?

Even where a binding settlement agreement is reached between counsel, a court has discretion not to enforce it. The case law is clear, however, that this discretion should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances. As was stated by Misener J. in Brzozowski v. O’Leary[2] at para. 44(which was quoted by the motion judge in this case): Those judgments emphasize the judicial obligation to consider all of the circumstances of the case at hand, and to then decide whether it is fair to enforce the settlement. Although I risk unduly limiting my discretion by saying so, I think the right approach is to consider that a settlement effected pursuant to Rule 49 ought to be enforced, and so judgment ought to be granted, unless the offeror satisfies the judge that, in all the circumstances, enforcement would create a real risk of a clear injustice. It seems to me that that approach is required because it is good public policy to encourage settlement, and it would be quite inconsistent with that policy to decline enforcement unless a good reason for doing so is shown.