Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CV-20-85132
Date: 2025/04/14
BETWEEN:
Xiangun Cai, Haifan Chen, Haiyun Chen, Min Gu, Renlie Lyu, Guohua Wang, Min Wang, Jinmin Xu, Lingzhen Wang, Genxing Yu, Xi Zhu, Jianping Ye, Guiyun Chang, Yuxian Lu, Qifang Hu, Pingrong Sun, Zuyao Zheng, Xuemei Zhou, Wencun Ding, Guiying Xu, Zhaodi Chen, Jinfeng Hou, Longmei Liu, Yu Pan, Wanli Wang, Chengxian Wang, Zeyang Wang, Huimin Sun, Hanxiao Mao, Jin Zhu, Zhongde Chen, Weihua Yu, Fangliang Lyu, Ji Jiang, Zhaoqing Yu, Rui Liu, Qihong Zhang, Qilong Hu, Guoliang Xia, and Yuxian Hu
Plaintiffs
AND
Jia Qi, Union Tour Express Inc., Cruickshank Construction Limited, Coco Paving Inc., His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario, Jupiter Legend Corporation, CTour Holiday LLC, and Universal Vision Holdings Corporation
Defendants
Appearances:
Craig Brown, for the plaintiffs
Rachel Cooper, for the defendant, Union Tour Express Inc.
Brigitte Morrison, for the defendant, Jia Qi
Heard: January 29, 2025 (By videoconference)
Amended Ruling on Motion
The counsel’s name for the defendant, Union Tour Express Inc., was corrected on April 14, 2025, from “Rachel Kuchma” to “Rachel Cooper”.
Justice Sylvia Corthorn
Introduction
[1] In early June 2018, a motor coach tour of the Eastern United States and Ontario came to a tragic end. Thirty-four adults from China (“the Passengers”) were on the tour. They had travelled from China to San Francisco, CA. After touring the western United States, the Passengers were touring the Eastern United States and Ontario by motor coach. The motor coach was involved in a single vehicle collision on day 17 of what was to be a 22-day tour.
[2] On June 4, 2018, the motor coach departed from Ottawa with Toronto as the intended destination later the same day. The motor coach travelled south on Highway 416 and then west on Highway 401. While the motor coach was westbound near Prescott, Ontario, it left the highway and collided with a rocky outcropping.
[3] Six actions were commenced to address claims on behalf of the estates of three passengers who died as a result of the collision, 28 injured passengers, and 41 family members of the deceased or injured passengers (“the Actions”). All counsel representing parties to the Actions worked collaboratively:
- The liability issues were cost-effectively addressed. Over time, counsel for the plaintiffs formed the collective opinion that the only meritorious claims are those against the transportation provider, Union Tour Express Inc. (“Union Tour”), and the motor coach driver, Jia Qi (“Mr. Qi”);
- On the date of the collision, Safety Insurance Company (“Safety Insurance”) was the automobile insurer for Union Tour. A scope of coverage issue regarding the policy of automobile insurance issued by Safety Insurance to Union Tour (“the Policy”) was resolved; and
- Through mediation, the plaintiffs in the Actions agreed upon a pro-rata sharing of both the third party limits available from Safety Insurance Company (“Safety Insurance”) and the costs (fees and HST) to be paid by the insurer. In addition, the disbursements to be paid by Safety Insurance, unique to each of the Actions, were resolved.
[4] On the motion now before the court (“apportionment motion”), all plaintiffs ask the court to approve the pro-rata sharing of both the third party limits and the costs, and to approve the amount of the agreed-upon disbursements unique to each action. The proposed distribution of the funds is detailed in Appendix ‘A’.
[5] The title of proceeding of this ruling is for one of the Actions only; it does not include the names of counsel for the plaintiffs in the other five actions or of counsel for the defendants, other than Union Tour and Jia Qi. The following is a list of the five other actions (relying on a short-form for the title of proceeding in each action):
a) Ye et al. v. Jia Qi, Union Tour Express Inc. et al. – Court file no. 20-83692;
b) Lu et al. v. Jia Qi, Union Tour Express Inc. et al. – Court file no. 20-84286;
c) Xu et al. v. Jia Qi, Union Tour Express Inc. et al. – Court file no. 20-84287;
d) Wang et al. v. Jia Qi, Union Tour Express Inc. et al. – Court file no. 20-85039; and
e) Zhou et al. v. Jia Qi, Union Tour Express Inc. et al. – Court file no. 20-85037.
[6] Earlier endorsements in the Actions were prepared and released under the title of proceeding Zhang v. Qi. That proceeding is the Lu action (Court file no. 20-84286). The passenger, Weiping Lu, died as a result of the collision. Pingfang Zhang is the litigation administrator for the Estate of Weiping Lu.
[7] For the reasons that follow, the relief requested on the apportionment motion is granted.
Background
[8] The three passengers who died and the 28 passengers who sustained injuries were and are, respectively, residents of China. All plaintiffs advancing claims pursuant to the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c F.3 (“the FLA plaintiffs”) are also residents of China. All the injured passengers and any family members who came to Canada following the collision, eventually returned to China. The net settlement proceeds will be paid to the plaintiffs or, for the plaintiffs under disability, managed on their behalf, in China.
[9] Union Tour owned the motor coach, having purchased the vehicle three or four years prior to the date of the collision. In 2011, Union Tour was incorporated in New York State; in 2014, the corporation was transferred to Massachusetts.
[10] Union Tour hired Mr. Qi as a motor coach operator. The individual responsible for hiring Mr. Qi had no concerns, at the time of hiring, about Mr. Qi’s skills as a motor coach driver.
[11] The collision occurred at 3:20 p.m. on June 4, 2018. The motor coach was westbound, on Highway 401, between the southern end of Highway 416 and Kingston. The collision was captured on a dash camera installed in a truck that was travelling immediately behind the motor coach.
[12] The video footage from the dash camera depicts the following sequence of events transpiring over a 19-second period:
- The motor coach crosses the solid white line separating the travelled lane from the paved shoulder;
- The motor coach travels onto the gravel shoulder, adjacent to the paved shoulder, and then into and along a grassy ditch, which runs parallel to the highway;
- As the motor coach travels the length of the grassy ditch, what might be described as the ‘passenger side’ of the motor coach comes into contact with and scrapes alongside a rocky outcropping. The outcropping is adjacent to and runs the length of the grassy ditch.
[13] The most seriously injured of the Passengers and those who died were seated next to the passenger side windows (as opposed to in an aisle seat on the passenger side of the motor coach).
[14] Following the accident, Mr. Qi was charged with careless driving pursuant to s. 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8. In September 2021, Mr. Qi pleaded guilty to that offence. The presiding justice of the peace imposed a $4,000 fine and a nine-month driver’s licence suspension.
[15] Given the seriousness of the collision and the potential value of all the claims, it is understandable that approximately a half-dozen corporations or entities, other than Union Tour, are named as defendants in the Actions. Ultimately, all plaintiffs’ counsel concluded that it would not be possible to establish liability on the part of any defendants other than Union Tour and Mr. Qi. In reaching that conclusion, plaintiffs’ counsel considered the following factors.
[16] First, claims were pursued against Cruikshank Construction Limited, Coco Paving Inc., and the Province of Ontario because of the possibility that construction in the area of the collision contributed to its occurrence. That possibility was considered because of the presence of orange cones on the Highway 401, to the east of the location where the collision occurred. Based on their review of the video footage from the dash camera, plaintiffs’ counsel concluded that (a) there was no active construction in the area at the relevant time, and (b) the presence of the orange cones did not contribute to the occurrence of the collision.
[17] Second, Jupiter Legend Corporation (“Jupiter”) offered pre-packed or pre-planned tours, organizing all services for the trip taken by the Passengers. Universal Vision Holdings Corporation (“Universal”) is a holding company for Jupiter. A Chinese corporation, Beijing Trust, hired Jupiter to organize the eastern portion of the 22-day tour. Jupiter contracted out to Union Tour the tour leadership and transportation for that portion of the tour.
[18] As part of the documentary discovery process, Jupiter produced a document from the United States Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”). The FMCSA gave Union Tour a satisfactory safety rating. There is no evidence of any safety issues regarding Union Tour flagged by FMCSA or by any other administrative body.
[19] Jupiter had no control over the selection of the motor coach driver prior to the commencement of the eastern portion of the tour. Jupiter could, in the event of a complaint received, request that Union Tour replace a driver. There is no evidence of such a complaint having been received by Jupiter prior to the collision.
[20] Upon completion of both the documentary and oral discovery process, there was no evidence to support a finding of liability against either Jupiter or Universal.
[21] CTour Holiday LLC is named as a defendant in three actions. By 2021, counsel for the plaintiffs in those actions had ascertained that CTour Holiday LLC was improperly named as a defendant. That issue was addressed at a 2021 case conference before Kaufman A.J. (as he then was).
[22] In summary, by the spring of 2024, all plaintiffs’ counsel agreed that, if the Actions proceeded to trial, the only defendants who could potentially be found liable for the collision or vicariously liable in relation to the collision are Mr. Qi and Union Tour, respectively. I agree with that conclusion; it was reasonable to narrow the Actions to the pursuit of claims against those two defendants.
[23] As of the return date for the apportionment motion, some of the claims against defendants other than Union Tour and Mr. Qi had been dismissed or discontinued. In actions in which one or more of the plaintiffs is a party under disability (through injury or because of their age), the dismissal of the claims against defendants other than Union Tour and Mr. Qi will be addressed in motions, to be brought at a later date, pursuant to r. 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.
The Settlement of the Claims Against Union Tour and Mr. Qi
[24] In August 2023, Safety Insurance offered to settle the claims of all plaintiffs against Union Tour and Mr. Qi for $5,000,000 (USD)—the third party limits available under the Policy. The offer was to settle all claims for damages, interest, and costs for that amount. I highlight two points regarding that offer.
[25] First, the August 2023 offer from Safety Insurance was conditional on the plaintiffs confirming that there is no other policy of insurance that may be called upon to respond to any claim or crossclaim made in the Actions.
[26] Second, as of August 2023, Safety Insurance was taking the position that the third party limits of $5,000,000 (USD) are inclusive of costs. By contrast, for motor vehicle policies written in Ontario, costs are paid over and above the amount of the third party limits.
[27] In response to the latter position, plaintiffs’ counsel in the Cai action obtained an opinion from two Massachusetts-based attorneys. Those individuals opined that the Supplementary Payments provision in the Policy does not provide coverage for “attorneys’ fees” (i.e., fees and applicable HST).
[28] The plaintiffs maintained their collective position that because the collision occurred in Ontario, Safety Insurance is required to pay costs over and above the third party limits available. Despite having narrowed the liability issues, with the scope of coverage issue unresolved, the plaintiffs were not in a position to accept the August 2023 offer.
[29] By the spring of 2024, the issues to be resolved were reduced to (a) the scope of coverage issue, and (b) apportionment of the only insurance money available to all plaintiffs—the $5,000,000 (USD) in third party limits and any other money available under the Policy.
[30] It was not essential that the scope of coverage issue be resolved prior to mediation of the apportionment of money available under the Policy. Plaintiffs’ counsel scheduled mediation for September 2024 to address the apportionment issue and scheduled an application before this court for January 2025 to address the scope of coverage issue.
[31] Shortly before the September 2024 mediation date, Safety Insurance conceded that its exposure for costs is over and above the third party limits. The issues to be addressed at mediation were therefore expanded to include the quantum and apportionment of costs payable by Safety Insurance.
[32] At mediation, the following issues were resolved, subject to court approval:
- The apportionment of $5,000,000 (USD) for damages and interest as between the Actions;
- That Safety Insurance will pay 12 percent of $5,000,000 (USD) for the fee portion (including HST) of costs, with that portion of the costs to be apportioned on the same pro-rata basis the third party limits are apportioned; and
- The disbursements unique to each action to be paid by Safety Insurance.
[33] Through the documentary and oral discovery process, and with assistance from Mr. Qi’s counsel, plaintiffs’ counsel concluded that there is no prospect of recovering money personally from Union Tour or Mr. Qi in the event the Actions proceeded to trial and judgment was awarded against those defendants.
[34] Regarding Mr. Qi’s financial circumstances, plaintiffs’ counsel considered the following information provided by Mr. Qi’s counsel. As of March 2024, Mr. Qi (a) owned a nine-year old vehicle; (b) had credit card debts totaling approximately $29,000; (c) had a one-fifth interest in a family residential property in Oklahoma valued at $100,000 (USD); and (d) lived in a room in Florida, which he rents.
[35] The financial status of Union Tour was addressed, in the latter half of 2023, on the examination for discovery of a representative of that corporation. The information obtained at that time includes that (a) Union Tour ceased to operate in 2020 during the COVID-19 global pandemic; (b) motor coaches leased by Union Tour had been seized by the lessors of the vehicles because of default in lease payments; and (c) Union Tour has no assets.
[36] I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have exhausted all potential avenues of recovery other than the money available under the Policy. I turn next to the court’s jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.
The Court’s Jurisdiction to Grant the Relief Requested
[37] In support of the relief requested on the apportionment motion, the plaintiffs rely on s. 133(3) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8. That section provides as follows: “In all actions where several persons are interested in the insurance money, the court or judge may apportion among the persons entitled any sum directed to be paid, and may give all necessary directions and relief.”
[38] In Behrns v. Burleigh, para 13, Corbett J. describes s. 133(3) as conferring “a broad discretion” on this court. It is important to highlight, however, that s. 133(3) applies to all contracts of insurance “made in Ontario” other than contracts of sickness, accident, or marine insurance: see s. 122 of the Insurance Act.
[39] The Policy was written in Massachusetts and issued to a corporation operating out of that state. It is difficult to conceive how this court could find that the Policy was “made in Ontario” so as to bring the Policy within the scope of s. 133(3) of Insurance Act. The plaintiffs do not ask the court to make such a finding.
[40] I find that s. 133(3) of the Insurance Act does not apply to the apportionment motion. That section is helpful because it provides the court with an example of circumstances in which the type of relief requested on the apportionment motion may be granted.
[41] The court has an inherent jurisdiction to control its own process. Determining the apportionment motion falls within that jurisdiction.
[42] The apportionment motion is not framed as a motion pursuant to r. 7.08 for approval of settlements on behalf of parties under a disability. The apportionment motion is a prerequisite step to motions of that kind being pursued in the actions in which one or more plaintiffs is under disability. Unless and until the apportionment of the settlement funds is resolved, the plaintiffs who are under disability are unable to address the relief they require pursuant to rr. 7.08 and 7.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (the latter for payment of money other than to the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice).
[43] In the annotations that follow r. 7.08 in Derek McKay & Michael Foulds, Watson & McGowan’s Ontario Civil Practice, 2025, (Toronto: Carswell, 2024), the authors provide a distillation of the evidence required to support a motion under that rule. The authors therein state that the moving party must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate to the court that the issues of liability and assessment of damages have been appropriately investigated and assessed. That description of the evidence required in support of a r. 7.08 motion is helpful in the context of the apportionment motion.
[44] For the reasons explained above, regarding the narrowing of the liability issues, and for the reasons explained below, regarding the proposed allocation of settlement funds, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that appropriate investigations and assessments of the liability and damages issues have been carried out.
[45] I also consider the general principle set out in r. 1.04(1): the “rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits.” By first pursuing approval of the overall apportionment of the settlement funds, the plaintiffs take a cost-effective and efficient approach towards bringing the Actions to a conclusion.
Affidavits from Litigation Guardians are not Required in Support of the Motion
[46] The plaintiffs in all of the Actions other than the Cai action, intend to bring an omnibus motion for an order dispensing with the requirement to include an affidavit from the litigation guardian in support of their respective motions pursuant to r. 7.08. The requirement for such an affidavit is found in r. 7.08(4)(a). As noted in paragraph 57, below, the challenges of representing a party who resides in China include the restrictions on the participation of Chinese citizens in legal proceedings outside China.
[47] Once the motion for an order dispensing with the requirement to include a litigation guardian affidavit is determined, counsel who represent plaintiffs under disability intend to serve and file materials for relief pursuant to rr. 7.08 and 7.09.
[48] A question was raised as to whether it is possible for the court to determine the apportionment motion before the motion for relief related to litigation guardian affidavits is determined. I am satisfied that, pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its process, and applying the general principle stated in r. 1.04, affidavits from the litigation guardians are not required in support of the apportionment motion.
[49] I move on to the proposed allocation of the settlement funds.
The Proposed Allocation of the Settlement Funds
[50] In December 2024, the court ordered that the settlement funds agreed upon be paid to TD Canada Trust and held in trust, pending a determination of the apportionment motion and, where necessary, the motions pursuant to r. 7.08: Wang v. Qi (16 December 2024), Ottawa, CV-20-85039 (Ont. S.C.). That order was made so that the plaintiffs do not lose the benefit of interest that would accrue on $5,000,000 (USD). Interest earned, from the date on which Safety Insurance paid the settlement funds to TD Canada Trust to the dates on which monies are paid out, will be apportioned as agreed upon by the plaintiffs or as determined by the court.
[51] Appendix ‘A’ sets out the proposed apportionment of the third party limits (described in the chart as “Insurance Proceeds”), costs (“Legal Fees”), and disbursements. All monetary amounts in Appendix ‘A’ are in Canadian dollars and based on the conversion rate applied by TD Canada Trust upon its receipt of the funds in December 2024.
a) Apportionment of the Insurance Proceeds
[52] The record includes a primary affidavit and a secondary affidavit from Miryam Gorelashvili, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cai action. The primary affidavit addresses matters relevant to the apportionment motion generally. Those matters include, for example, the litigation history; how the focus of the Actions was narrowed to pursuit of the claims against Union Tour and Mr. Qi; and the September 2024 mediation.
[53] The exhibits to Ms. Gorelashvili’s primary affidavit include copies of the substantive text of the mediation briefs filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in each of the Actions. From those exhibits, the court has evidence of the approaches taken by plaintiffs counsel, going into mediation, regarding the assessment of their respective clients’ damages.
[54] In addition to Ms. Gorelashvili’s secondary affidavit, the record includes an affidavit from plaintiffs’ counsel in each of the other five actions. In their affidavits, plaintiffs’ counsel explain the adjustments made to their respective assessments of damages based on input from the mediator, opinions expressed by other plaintiffs’ counsel, and how certain issues were handled by other plaintiffs’ counsel.
[55] As examples of the different approaches to the assessment of damages, I highlight the differences in the hourly rates relied on for attendant care in China, in the hourly rate for housekeeping services in China, and as to the life expectancies of the plaintiffs (i.e., statistics from China versus Statistics Canada figures).
[56] Other differences in approaches include that, for some plaintiffs, claims that would be advanced at trial (i.e., damages for mental distress) were not included for the purpose of mediation. For at least one of the plaintiffs, a settlement subject to court approval of that individual’s claim for Statutory Accident Benefits is factor in the settlement of their tort action. Last, for some plaintiffs, consideration was given to the speculative nature of claims for a gross up for income tax—because of uncertainty as to the applicable law in China.
[57] All plaintiffs’ counsel demonstrated a high degree of skill and significant diligence when garnering evidence in support of their respective clients’ claims for damages. Plaintiffs’ counsel did so faced with challenges that come with representing clients who live (a) in another country; (b) do not necessarily speak or understand English; (c) conduct themselves with cultural values that differ, in some ways, from cultural values one might anticipate from residents of Canada; and (d) are subject to restrictions on their participation in legal proceedings outside Canada.
[58] The record before the court on the apportionment motion includes a summary of the assessments of damages reflected in the mediation briefs. From that summary, the court has an appreciation for what the pro-rata sharing of the Insurance Proceeds would have been if based on the plaintiffs’ respective positions going into mediation. That summary also allows the court to ascertain for which of the plaintiffs the proposed apportionment reflects an upward adjustment, and those for which the proposed apportionment reflects a downward adjustment, (i.e., from the starting point), in their respective shares of the Insurance Proceeds.
[59] I am satisfied that the upward and downward adjustments made are reasonable. I am also satisfied that the proposed apportionment of the Insurance Proceeds is fair and reasonable to all plaintiffs. The apportionment of the Insurance Proceeds proposed in Appendix ‘A’ is approved.
b) Apportionment of the Legal Fees
[60] Regarding the Legal Fees, the proposal of 12 percent of the Insurance Proceeds is reasonable. The fee portion of costs in personal injury matters are sometimes calculated on the basis of 15 percent for the first $100,000 paid and 10 percent on each $100,000 thereafter. Calculating the Legal Fees based on 12 percent, inclusive of fees and HST, for all plaintiffs reflects the collaborative and cost-effective approach taken by all plaintiffs’ counsel.
[61] I pause to note that the terms of the settlement include that the Legal Fees are calculated at 12 percent of the Insurance Proceeds. The Legal Fees listed in the chart represent 12.89 percent of the Insurance Proceeds. The slight discrepancy between the 12 percent agreed upon and the end result of 12.89 percent is not addressed in the supporting affidavits. This small discrepancy may result from conversion rates applied by TD Canada Trust when it received the funds; the discrepancy is irrelevant for the purpose of the apportionment motion.
[62] The apportionment of the Legal Fees proposed in Appendix ‘A’ is approved.
c) The Disbursements Unique to Each of the Actions
[63] When determining this aspect of the approval requested, the court is not engaged in the type of review required if the relief requested were approval of a solicitor-client account. The reasonableness and quantum of disbursements incurred do not require determination on the apportionment motion.
[64] Three of the plaintiffs’ counsel included an itemized list of disbursements upon which the proposed amount payable to their respective clients is based; three plaintiffs’ counsel did not do so. I reviewed the itemized lists provided in three of the actions. I am satisfied that the proposed allocation of disbursements to the plaintiffs in those actions is reasonable.
[65] In the actions in which an itemized list is not provided in support of the apportionment motion, the court has the benefit of the minutes of settlement and the supporting affidavits from plaintiffs’ counsel in each of those actions. Based on the supporting affidavits filed in those actions, I am satisfied that plaintiffs’ counsel achieved a fair and reasonable recovery for their respective clients’ disbursements.
[66] For plaintiffs under disability, the amount of the disbursements payable by them will, in any event, be addressed on the r. 7.08 motions to be made in due course.
[67] For plaintiffs not under disability, they have the right to address their respective solicitor-client accounts in the usual manner. If a plaintiff not under disability wishes to take issue with any disbursements charged to them, they may do so. Nothing in this ruling deprives a plaintiff, not under disability, of that right.
[68] I am satisfied that the recovery of disbursements unique to each of the Actions is reasonable. The apportionment of the Disbursements proposed in Appendix ‘A’ is approved.
Disposition
[69] The apportionment of the Insurance Proceeds, the Legal Fees, and the Disbursements proposed in Appendix ‘A’ is approved.
[70] None of the plaintiffs in the Cai action is a party under disability. The plaintiffs in the Cai action do not require court approval of the settlement of their claims; they are entitled to their pro-rata share of the Insurance Proceeds, Legal Fees, and Disbursements. The total amount to be paid to the plaintiffs in the Cai action is $3,434,936.10.
[71] An order was required for the settlement funds to be paid to and held in trust by TD Canada Trust; an order is required for TD Canada Trust to pay any portion of the funds held in trust for the plaintiffs in the Actions. TD Canada Trust shall pay to “MG Law Professional Corporation, in Trust”, for the benefit of the plaintiffs in the Cai action, the sum of $3,434,936.10.
[72] At a later date, the court will determine the entitlement of the plaintiffs in the Actions to a portion of the interest earned from the date of payment of the settlement funds to TD Canada Trust to the dates on which funds are paid to the plaintiffs in the Actions. Information from TD Canada Trust will be required to assist the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the court to ensure that interest earned is fairly apportioned.
[73] The court orders that TD Canada Trust shall, within five business days of the date on which the monies referred to in para. 70, above, are paid out, provide the following information in writing to all plaintiffs’ counsel: (a) the date on which the payment to “MG Law Professional Corporation, in Trust” is made, (b) all interest earned to that date, and (c) the balance remaining in the TD Canada Trust account as of that date.
[74] Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Zhou and Wang actions is the primary contact for all plaintiffs’ counsel with TD Canada Trust. Based on the submissions received from plaintiffs’ counsel in those actions, I am satisfied that it was not necessary to serve TD Canada Trust with the voluminous record for the apportionment motion. TD Canada Trust requires authorization to receive and distribute settlement funds; it does not take a position on the apportionment of those funds. The court therefore dispenses with the requirement to serve TD Canada Trust, a non-party affected by the order made on the apportionment motion, with the record for the motion.
[75] The plaintiffs in the Actions and the defendants, Union Tour and Jia Qi, agree that there shall be no costs of the apportionment motion.
[76] This ruling applies to and has the same force and effect as if made in each of the Actions. A copy of this ruling and of the order issued in accordance with it shall be filed in the court file for each of the Actions.
________________________________________
Sylvia Corthorn
Released: March 31, 2025
Amended on April 14, 2025
Appendix ‘A’
| Action | Pro Rata % | Insurance Proceeds | Legal Fees | Disbursements | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cai Action | 40.07% | $2,866,368.75 | $368,567.35 | $200,000.00 | $3,434,936.10 |
| Ye Action | 6.62% | $473,555.31 | $60,891.34 | $2,428.85 | $536,875.50 |
| Lu Action | 6.62% | $473,555.31 | $60,891.34 | $6,860.00 | $541,306.65 |
| Xu Action | 6.62% | $473,555.31 | $60,891.34 | $12,513.64 | $546,960.29 |
| Wang Action | 17.48% | $1,250,414.92 | $160,782.56 | $31,133.86 | $1,442,331.34 |
| Zhou Action | 22.59% | $1,615,953.83 | $207,784.79 | $44,198.60 | $1,867,937.22 |
| TOTAL: | 100% | $7,153,403.43 | $919,808.70 | $297,134.95 | $8,370,347.08 |