Robert John Kram

The court approved the settlement of a tort claim for a disabled plaintiff, Matus Conka, for $950,000.00 plus costs and disbursements.

The primary focus of the endorsement was to determine the reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement between the plaintiffs and their counsel.

Applying the principles from Henricks-Hunter, the court assessed the fairness of the agreement and the reasonableness of the fees, considering factors such as time expended, complexity, results achieved, and risk assumed.

While the solicitor sought 25% of the settlement, the court reduced the approved fees, allowing a premium of $50,000 plus HST over the docketed time, balancing fairness to the plaintiff and the solicitor.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision denying them leave to issue a third party claim.

The motion judge had relied on the decision in Misko v. Doe.

The appellants conceded their appeal rested entirely on the proposition that Misko v. Doe was wrongly decided.

As the Court of Appeal recently dismissed the appeal in Misko v. Doe, this appeal was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The central issue was whether the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an assembly line worker.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and accepted the evidence of her treating family doctor over the insurer's medical examiners.

The arbitrator concluded that the physical demands of the applicant's job, which required continuous standing and repetitive lifting, combined with her accident-related soft tissue injuries and chronic pain, rendered her substantially unable to perform her essential duties.

The applicant was awarded IRBs for the disputed period, along with interest.