Brent Meadows

This is the fourth ruling in a motion brought by the plaintiffs for approval of a settlement concerning minor plaintiffs' claims, management of net settlement funds, a contingency fee retainer agreement, and the solicitor-client account.

The court had previously approved the settlement for both minor plaintiffs and the solicitor-client account on a quantum meruit basis, but dismissed the request for approval of the contingency fee agreement.

This ruling specifically addresses the final determination of the minor plaintiffs' pro-rata contributions to the solicitor-client account and the net settlement amounts payable to them, while also providing detailed directions for the revision of the draft order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a settlement of the minor plaintiffs' claims, the proposed management of the net settlement funds, and the proposed solicitor-client account.

In this third interim ruling, the court adjourned the motion to permit the plaintiffs to file additional evidence regarding the specific calculations for the minor plaintiffs' pro-rata contributions towards the solicitor-client account and the net amounts payable to each minor.

The court also directed the plaintiffs to serve the Office of the Children's Lawyer and to submit a revised draft order complying with Form 59A.

This interim ruling addresses a motion for court approval of a minor settlement, management of net settlement funds, and solicitor-client account.

While the solicitor-client account was approved, the court adjourned decisions on the minor plaintiffs' specific contributions to the account and the detailed management of Brayden's structured settlement funds due to insufficient evidence regarding tax implications and the proposed structure.

The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to dispense with service of motion records on the defendant, emphasizing the need for proper procedural compliance and the defendant's right to review the full terms of the proposed order and release.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the tribunal made an error of fact by stating the respondent's position was that her psychological impairments were pre-existing, when the respondent had conceded some impairments were caused by the accident.

The tribunal dismissed the request, finding that even if an error of fact was made regarding causation, it would not change the outcome because the original decision was based solely on the applicant's level of function not meeting the threshold for a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being injured when thrown from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Grummett test and found that the ATV was not an automobile in common parlance, was not defined as an automobile in an insurance policy, and did not fall within an enlarged definition of automobile under any relevant statute because the applicant failed to prove the incident occurred on a roadway where insurance would be required.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental or behavioural disorders following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a marked impairment in the adaptation domain.

The Tribunal placed limited weight on the applicant's experts because the applicant had concealed significant functional activities, such as independently driving to Nova Scotia and planning a wedding, and because her psychiatrist strayed into advocacy.

The application was dismissed, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant's name initialized to protect her safety as a survivor of intimate partner violence.