Jennifer Theresa Arrigo

This application sought court approval for the settlement of a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) claim, a contingency fee retainer agreement, and the proposed solicitor-client account for a catastrophically impaired applicant.

The court approved the $935,000 SABS settlement, finding it reasonable despite delays and erosion of the lump sum.

However, the contingency fee agreement was dismissed due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act and its regulations.

The solicitor-client account was approved on a fee-for-service basis, with some disbursements disallowed, resulting in a fixed amount of $193,365.43.

The plaintiffs in a personal injury action sought a redaction order to conceal the amount of a settlement and advance payments, as well as expert reports on damages, from the public record.

The motion was dismissed.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a serious risk to important public interests such as settlement privilege, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements, or the privacy of litigants, as required by the Sierra Club test.

The extensive media attention was not considered a measure of public interest.

The applicant sought court approval for a $935,000 accident benefits settlement with the respondent insurer, as required by the insurer due to concerns about the applicant's capacity to manage property.

Despite a prior capacity assessment, the court expressed concerns about the evidence supporting the applicant's capacity and the sufficiency of the record under Rule 7.08 regarding the settlement's best interests.

The court ordered an updated capacity assessment for the applicant, with the report to be filed, and maintained the condition for court approval of the settlement pending further order.