Harry Brown

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a full and final settlement of his statutory accident benefits claim, pursuant to Rule 7.08(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court approved the proposed settlement of $450,000, which included a structured component, finding it to be in the best interests of the applicant.

The decision also provided important clarification on the practice of pre-funding structured settlements in escrow, affirming that this process is appropriate and necessary to secure precise payment schedules and does not usurp the court's jurisdiction, as funds remain subject to withdrawal or amendment until final approval.

CPI Security Services Inc. (CPI) brought a motion for costs after 2465855 Ontario Ltd. o/a The Westin Prince, Toronto (Westin) accepted CPI's Rule 49 offer to settle but then defaulted on payment and costs.

CPI sought $54,121.12 in costs.

The court fixed CPI's costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis and costs of enforcing the settlement on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $47,037.30.

The court found Westin's general claims of COVID-19 financial impact insufficient to justify default and noted Westin's lack of communication.

The court also reduced CPI's claimed costs for undertakings and pre-trial preparation, deeming them excessive.

The judge convened a case conference regarding a proposed partial summary judgment motion by Defendants Gill and Freeway Auto Service to dismiss the action against them, which was opposed by Defendants Lorenzo and Martinez.

Citing Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the judge found the proposed partial summary judgment motion inappropriate due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact.

The judge suggested that a full summary judgment motion on liability for all defendants might be a more appropriate and efficient use of court resources.

The plaintiff brought a motion under rule 21.01 seeking a declaration that her injuries constituted an "accident" under s.2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, thereby entitling her to statutory accident benefits.

The incident occurred when the plaintiff was injured while a taxi driver attempted to move a motorized scooter to transport a passenger to a wheelchair-accessible taxi.

The court applied the two-part test requiring that the injury arise from the use or operation of an automobile and that such use directly cause the impairment.

Although the taxi was being used for its intended purpose, the court held the injury was caused by the driver's handling of the scooter, an intervening act unrelated to the use or operation of the taxi.

The motion for a declaratory order was therefore dismissed.