James C. Dakin

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor plaintiff who alleged sexual abuse by a classmate.

After addressing deficiencies noted in a prior endorsement, the court found the settlement, including a voluntary reduction in plaintiff counsel's fees, to be reasonable given the significant causation and damages risks involved.

The court approved the settlement, directed the funds to be paid into court, and granted an order sealing the court file to protect the minor's privacy and dignity.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which sought damages arising from a child protection agency's investigation into allegations that a foster parent sexually abused a foster child.

The court struck the claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of statutory duty, and defamation, finding that a child protection agency does not owe a duty of care to foster parents, as its paramount duty is to the child.

The claims against the individual employees were also struck due to statutory immunity.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claim to plead the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for a consent judgment approving a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor who was allegedly bullied and sexually abused by a classmate.

The court declined to approve the settlement, citing non-compliance with Rule 7.08, discrepancies between the settlement amounts in the release and the draft judgment, insufficient evidence regarding the minor's prognosis, and a lack of justification for deviating from the presumptive requirement to pay settlement funds into court.

The court also directed counsel to address whether a sealing order should be granted to protect the minor's identity.