A. Khan

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a minor's settlement.

The court previously approved the settlement amount and legal fees but adjourned the matter to determine whether the net funds should be paid into an RESP instead of to the Accountant of the Superior Court.

Based on the litigation guardian's financial expertise and the benefits of government grants, the court found that payment into an RESP was more advantageous and in the minor's best interests.

The settlement and payment structure were approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a $40,000 all-inclusive settlement arising from an incident where a refrigerator door fell on the infant plaintiff in the defendant's grocery store.

The court approved the settlement amount and the 30% contingency fee, noting the fee must be calculated on the settlement amount excluding costs.

However, the court adjourned the request to pay the funds into an RESP rather than to the Accountant of the Superior Court, requiring further evidence that the RESP is more advantageous.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with excess alcohol, arguing that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated because the police delayed administering an approved screening device (ASD) test, creating a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The trial judge held that the appellant failed to meet his onus of establishing that there was a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice held that the trial judge erred in placing the onus on the appellant.

The court found that once an applicant establishes a prima facie Charter violation (detention without being advised of the right to counsel), the onus shifts to the Crown to justify the breach under s. 1 by proving the demand was made 'forthwith', which includes showing there was no reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to preclude the tort defendants from raising the issue of the identity of the driver and owner of the defendant vehicle based on issue estoppel, following a summary judgment that dismissed the claim against the plaintiff's insurer, Unifund.

Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought to set aside the summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the summary judgment, finding no accidental slip or change in material facts.

The court also dismissed the issue estoppel argument, concluding that the tort defendants, who took no position on the summary judgment motion, were not parties to that proceeding for the purpose of issue estoppel.