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.

The corporate defendants brought a motion for the production of pre-accident clinical counselling notes and for a further independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff, two weeks before the scheduled trial of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court granted the production of the clinical notes, finding them highly relevant to the co-plaintiff's Family Law Act claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further psychiatric examination, ruling it unreasonable and procedurally unfair to require the plaintiff to undergo another examination on the eve of trial without evidence of a significant change in her condition.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $364,266.92 in an accounting and $50,000 in punitive damages to the respondent, a creditor of a bankrupt company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellants failed to provide a reliable accounting or preserve necessary documents.

The court also upheld the punitive damages award, noting the appellants operated the bankrupt company's business without authority and charged criminal rates of interest.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached a consulting agreement by playing both ends against the middle and preventing Royal Trust from advancing funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the pleadings and evidence, and the appellants could not rely on the failure to advance funds when they were instrumental in bringing about that result.

The appellant occupier appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding damages to a pizza delivery driver who slipped and fell on an unplowed path on the premises.

The trial judge found the occupier 50% liable due to inadequate lighting and signage directing visitors to the safe, plowed staircase.

On appeal, the occupier argued that inadequate lighting was not specifically pleaded and that the trial judge erred in her findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the pleadings regarding failure to maintain safe pathways were broad enough to include lighting, the issue was raised at trial without objection, and there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings on breach of duty and causation.