Moussa Sabzehghabaei

This is the fifth endorsement in an application for infant settlement approval under Rule 7.

The court repeatedly refused to approve the $6,500 settlement due to inadequate materials and an outstanding rehabilitation account.

Counsel for the applicant failed to provide requested documentation and address concerns over seven months, including the non-payment of a rehabilitation account despite funds allegedly being disbursed to the infant's mother.

The court expressed severe disapproval of counsel's conduct and issued further orders compelling immediate action regarding the outstanding account and status updates.

This is the third endorsement on a Rule 7 Application seeking court approval of a minor's accident benefits settlement.

The court again refused to grant full approval of the proposed settlement distribution due to inadequate documentation regarding disbursements, unsubstantiated rehabilitation costs, and concerns about a potential conflict of interest involving the litigation guardian.

The proposed legal fee structure was also questioned.

While the court approved the $6,500 settlement amount, it ordered further specific information from the rehabilitation centre and the litigation guardian before determining the final terms of the judgment.

The applicant sought court approval under Rule 7 for a minor's accident benefits settlement.

The court refused approval due to deficient materials, specifically a lack of medical prognosis, insufficient treatment records, and inadequate explanation for proposed disbursements and payments to a rehabilitation centre.

The court directed counsel to provide detailed itemized lists and invoices to justify the proposed distribution of settlement funds.

Following a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted, the plaintiffs recovered modest damages far below the amounts claimed.

The plaintiffs sought over $422,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendants argued the claim was disproportionate and relied on prior settlement offers.

The court analyzed proportionality, conduct of the litigation, trial duration, settlement efforts, and Rule 57.01 cost factors.

Although the defendants’ offers did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10, they were considered relevant under Rule 49.13.

Balancing the disproportionate costs sought, litigation conduct, settlement history, and the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either side.

Following a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded modest damages, implicitly rejecting much of the plaintiffs' evidence on causation and credibility.

However, the trial judge conducted an independent assessment and found the principal plaintiff to be credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from chronic low back pain caused by the accident, which constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the statutory threshold.