Laurie Redden

In post-settlement proceedings involving funds structured through a Special Needs Trust and annuity, the court addressed correspondence from counsel requesting review and variation of a proposed amended judgment relating to trusteeship and annuity payments.

The judge noted prior allegations of judicial bias and confirmed that he had already recused himself from the matter.

Given the recusal and the lack of written consent and clear directions from the parties and the Public Guardian and Trustee, the judge declined to take further steps.

The court indicated that another judge should assume carriage of the matter and determine outstanding issues including solicitor fees, distribution of settlement funds, trust modifications, and appointment of a suitable trustee.

Pending those determinations, the court suggested that funds incapable of being delivered to an approved trustee should be paid into court.

In a personal injury settlement involving a catastrophically injured plaintiff under disability, the court addressed issues arising from a contingency fee agreement between the plaintiff’s solicitors and the litigation guardian.

Following a prior appeal that determined fairness at the time the agreement was made but remitted the issue of reasonableness for determination, the motions judge issued directions requiring independent counsel for the incapable plaintiff and the canvassing of potential conflicts involving the Public Guardian and Trustee.

Counsel for the solicitors alleged judicial bias and sought the judge’s recusal.

The court rejected the allegation of bias, explaining that its interventions were aimed at ensuring proper representation and protection of the interests of the disabled plaintiff under Rule 7 and the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, the judge concluded that recusal was appropriate to avoid protracted litigation and to allow the issues to be determined by another motions judge.

Following an appellate direction, the matter returned to a motions judge to determine the reasonableness of a contingency fee agreement in litigation involving parties represented by litigation guardians.

Upon reviewing the record, the court identified a potential procedural defect concerning the absence of a properly appointed litigation guardian during the appeal, as contemplated by Rule 7.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court noted that the record did not establish that the Public Guardian and Trustee had formally assumed the role of litigation guardian or satisfied an applicable exception.

Because the issue could affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court and the validity of the proceedings, the court directed the Public Guardian and Trustee and relevant counsel to review the matter and make appropriate submissions before further determination.

Following a decision of the Court of Appeal remitting the matter, the Superior Court was required to determine the reasonableness of a contingency fee agreement under s. 24 of the Solicitors' Act and s. 5(1) of O. Reg. 195/04.

The litigation involved a person under disability whose interests were represented by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian.

The court recognized a potential conflict arising from the Public Guardian and Trustee’s involvement in drafting the contingency fee agreement while also acting in the individual’s best interests.

Invoking the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, the judge directed the Public Guardian and Trustee to retain independent counsel to review the materials and provide submissions regarding the reasonableness of the agreement on behalf of the person under disability.

The court indicated that it would determine whether oral submissions were necessary after reviewing the filed materials.