3 total
Supplementary reasons approved revised settlement administration and rejected reconsideration of HST costs.
In supplementary reasons following approval of a tort and accident benefits settlement involving a minor, the court addressed post-judgment issues concerning HST on costs, additional treatment disbursements, a management plan, structured settlement mechanics, and the form of judgment.
The court held that its prior reasons had adjudicated costs and declined to revisit the inclusion of HST.
It approved additional disbursements for necessary treatment, dispensed with a management plan and annual accounting requirement, approved revised structures notwithstanding earlier missed payments, and directed that two separate judgments issue to avoid an automatic stay affecting undisputed payments.
The court also dismissed the sealing order request and appointed the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to protect the minor's interests regarding any further challenge to costs and related matters.
Settlement approved, accident benefits contingency fees reduced, sealing order denied.
On a Rule 7.08 motion for approval of a global settlement arising from a child cyclist's catastrophic injury claim, the court approved the tort and accident benefits settlements but scrutinized the proposed contingency fees.
Applying the governing contingency fee jurisprudence, the court held that a one-third fee was fair and reasonable for the tort action given liability risk, lengthy carriage, high disbursements, and the result achieved.
The same percentage was not justified for the accident benefits claim, where the litigation risk and contentiousness were materially lower, reconstructed dockets were unreliable, and the contingency fee agreements were executed late.
The court reduced accident benefits fees, fixed total legal fees and disbursements, and refused a sealing order for failure to satisfy the open-court test.
Future income loss damages treated as income, not property, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
In a motor vehicle action brought by a bankrupt plaintiff, the defendant moved for a declaration that a claim for loss of future income constituted property that vested in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The court considered conflicting authorities regarding whether damages for future income loss should be characterized as property or as income for the purposes of the Act.
Adopting the reasoning in Re Conforti, the court held that damages for future income loss are properly treated as income rather than property.
Accordingly, the claim forms part of the bankrupt’s total income under s. 68(2) of the Act rather than vesting in the trustee as property.
