Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-20-83233-00CP (Ottawa) Date: 2025-09-17 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between:

ELLINA RABBAT and N.T. Plaintiffs

– and –

DR. FERNAND GASTON VINCENT NADON a.k.a DR. VINCENT NADON, VINCENT NADON MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA HEALTH SERVICES, and 866520 ONTARIO LTD. Defendants

Counsel

For the Plaintiffs: Sean A. Brown and Christopher Lupis

For M.E. (Class Member): Andrew Eckart

For Dr. Fernand Gaston Vincent Nadon: Tina Hill and Jadden Howell

For University of Ottawa: Jamie A. Macdonald and Simon Gollish

For University of Ottawa Health Services and 866520 Ontario Ltd.: Chris T.J. Blom

Heard at Ottawa: 8 September 2025

Reasons for Decision

(Motion for settlement approval pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act, 1992)

Mew J.

Introduction

[1] Ellina Rabbat and N.T. are the representative plaintiffs in this class proceeding in which the class members are comprised of all individuals who were patients at the University of Ottawa Health Services ("UOHS") clinic and were photographed, videotaped, and/or sexually assaulted by Dr. Vincent Nadon without their knowledge or consent (the "Class").

[2] The Class members seek recovery from the defendants for, inter alia, sexual battery, breaches of privacy, and negligence causing harm as a result of the defendants' conduct.

[3] A settlement agreement was reached on 29 July 2025, following extensive negotiations including mediation and three days of attendance at judicial pre-trial conferences. Those discussions included not only representatives of the parties but, also, counsel and representatives of some of the defendants' insurers.

[4] The plaintiffs now request the court's approval of a proposed settlement, and, in particular, orders:

a. approving the proposed settlement agreement which provides for the payment of $21,050,000 as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class, pursuant to section 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6;

b. that Verita Global Inc. is appointed as the Claims Administrator;

c. that Dr. David Wolfe and Dr. Peter Jaffe are appointed as the Claims Adjudicators;

d. approving the fees of the Claims Administrator and the Claims Adjudicators;

e. approving the proposed Notice Plan;

f. that the Class Proceedings Fund of the Law Foundation of Ontario (the "Fund") is entitled to a levy in the amount of 10% of the net settlement amount to which one or more Class members is entitled plus the amount of any outstanding disbursements awarded to the plaintiffs which have not been repaid to the Fund, in accordance with section 10(3) of O. Reg. 771/92;

g. approving payment of $125,000 to the Ontario Ministry of Health in full and final satisfaction of its subrogated right of recovery;

h. approving the payment of honoraria to each of the representative plaintiffs.

[5] An objection to the proposed settlement was received from M.E., who is a Class member. M.E. does not object to the financial components of the proposed settlement. However, she raises concerns about the notice plan and the proposed claims process. In particular she expresses concerns about the potential for re-traumatisation of Class members and asserts that the manner in which it is proposed that the claims of Class members are to be adjudicated fails to be truly trauma-informed.

[6] At the hearing of the motion for approval of the settlement, a number of other class members also addressed the court. Questions were asked, and comments made, concerning a number of topics, including the proposed allocations for lawyers' fees, the claim of the Class Proceedings Fund, the subrogated claim of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan ("OHIP"), the claims adjudication process, the length of the claims period, the availability of mental health supports for claimants, and the availability of ongoing legal assistance for claimants navigating the claim process.

[7] Counsel for UOHS and 866520 Ontario Ltd. asked the court to consider whether the proposed amount of the honoraria for the representative plaintiffs was consistent with such payments in similar circumstances in other cases.

[8] After hearing the submissions of counsel and the contributions made by Class members, I gave brief oral reasons approving the proposed settlement on the terms requested by Class counsel, with written reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

Factual Background

[9] Dr. Vincent Nadon was a medical doctor who, between 1990 and 2018, practised at the UOHS Clinic in the fields of family medicine, travel medicine and immigration medicine.

[10] Under a 1990 contract, management and operation of UOHS was transferred by the University of Ottawa (the "University") to 866520 Ontario Ltd. The agreement was renewed in 1999 for a 10-year term to 2009, and then extended indefinitely in July 2011.

[11] Dr. Nadon operated on a fee for service basis. He was paid by his patients or their insurers, including OHIP. He did not receive a salary from UOHS, who maintained throughout the litigation that Dr. Nadon was an independent contractor for whose actions it was not vicariously liable.

[12] On 18 January 2018, Dr. Nadon was arrested and subsequently charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and voyeurism.

[13] The day before his arrest, Dr. Nadon had surreptitiously video recorded a female patient in his examination room with an iPhone hidden in a cabinet. The video recording captured the physical examination during which the patient's breasts were exposed to the camera, as well as her undressing and dressing in the examination room. The patient saw the camera phone and immediately complained to the office staff. Later that day, as police surveilled him, Dr. Nadon was observed placing a black garbage bag into the garbage dumpster. The garbage bag contained a computer hard drive broken in 2 pieces. The hard drive had been damaged to the point that no data could be retrieved from it.

[14] Dr. Nadon subsequently pleaded guilty to 14 counts relating to 49 victims. 38 of those victims were identified from surreptitiously recorded videos recovered during a search warrant. While Dr. Nadon maintains that he did not record more victims, other patients who did not feature in the recordings that were recovered have expressed concern that they, too, may have been recorded.

[15] The sexual assaults included unnecessarily intimate and frequent breast and gynaecological examinations, asking patients to undress in circumstances inconsistent with general medical practice, and conducting internal examinations without any medical justification. Many patients reported that Dr. Nadon had touched them in ways that were unnecessary and blatantly sexual in nature. Patients said that they had regularly been left unnecessarily exposed during examinations, without provision of adequate draping or privacy. Dr. Nadon was said to have routinely remained in the examination room while patients were dressing or undressing, under circumstances that served no legitimate medical purpose.

[16] The voyeuristic recordings included patients while they were dressing/undressing and during the course of their examinations. The police investigation revealed that Dr. Nadon had accumulated a disturbing collection of video recordings that were taken without the knowledge or consent of his patients.

[17] Dr. Nadon received a global sentence of eight years in jail (seven to be served after sentencing, given time spent in pre-trial custody).

[18] On 15 April 2020, the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario ordered the revocation of Dr. Nadon's certificate of registration: Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Nadon, 2020 ONCPSD 32. In reaching its decision, the Discipline Committee stated, at 18-19:

Dr. Nadon preyed on his patients and abused his position of power over them. They came seeking his care and expertise with their health problems and questions. Dr. Nadon's patients undressed solely for the purpose of receiving medical care from him. They allowed him to touch them only for a medical purpose. Dr. Nadon's actions were a gross breach of his patients' trust in circumstances in which they were most vulnerable and had the highest expectation of privacy.

The witness impact statements speak clearly to the profound harm sustained by Dr. Nadon's patients. Patients spoke of the enduring negative impacts on their personal relationships, their loss of trust in the medical profession, males and others, and of a pervasive sense of fear, suspicion, shame and vulnerability. Their statements poignantly portray feelings of betrayal, embarrassment, violation, powerlessness, disrespect, anger, sadness, and depression. One woman raised concerns about her children and how she as a parent will guide them in their interactions with doctors. Another mentioned her mother's guilt that she had failed to protect her daughter when she first allowed her to see Dr. Nadon alone as a teenager. The sense of betrayed trust for several women was made all the worse by the fact that they had felt a sense of safety and trust in Dr. Nadon after many years in his care. For some patients, he had been their only physician during their adult lives. Many patients were recent immigrants to Canada. One woman wrote that she never thought that "incidents such as this could occur" in Canada.

Allegations and Procedural History

[19] This action was commenced in 2018, shortly before Dr. Nadon's conviction.

[20] The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Nadon had engaged in a longstanding and predatory pattern of sexually abusive conduct over nearly three decades. They further alleged that the institutional defendants had failed to prevent or meaningfully investigate Dr. Nadon's misconduct, despite longstanding warning signs and multiple opportunities to intervene. It was alleged that Dr. Nadon's relationship with UOHS bore many of the hallmarks of an employee, or that if he was not an employee, he was a "dependent contractor" of UOHS, and, hence, that UOHS was vicariously liable for Dr. Nadon's actions.

[21] This action was certified as a class proceeding on 7 December 2021. The certification process itself was extensive. While certification was ultimately achieved on consent, it followed months of negotiation and included the exchange of a full evidentiary record, and the delivery of multiple affidavits.

[22] The Certification Order of MacLeod R.S.J. defined the classes as follows:

The Patient Class is defined as all patients of the University of Ottawa Health Services ("UOHS") clinics who were:

(a) Photographed, filmed and/or videotaped by Dr. Nadon in a private setting, without their consent or knowledge;

(b) Sexually assaulted by Dr. Nadon, including but not limited to:

(i) Inappropriately touched by Dr. Nadon;

(ii) Directed by Dr. Nadon to undress and dress in front of him, in the absence of a female chaperone, under the guise of a medical examination;

(iii) Directed by Dr. Nadon to remain naked or otherwise undressed for a medical examination and who were not covered with a gown, sheet or similar item while Dr. Nadon was providing medical services; and

(iv) Making inappropriate comments of a sexual nature.

The Family Law Class is defined as all persons who have a derivative claim, in accordance with applicable family law legislation, arising from a family relationship with the Patient Class members.

[23] Following certification, document exchange was completed and examinations for discovery were conducted. Class counsel advise that they continued to maintain contact with identified Class members throughout, providing regular updates and gathering further evidence in support of their claims.

[24] There were a number of case conferences. There were third party production issues. Directions were given by the court. And there was related insurance coverage litigation with the insurers of UOHS.

[25] A private mediation in October 2023 did not result in settlement.

[26] In early 2024, a common issues trial date was set, to commence on 2 September 2025 in Ottawa for an estimated eight weeks.

[27] A two day in-person pre-trial conference took place on 4 and 5 February 2025 in Ottawa, which did not result in the final settlement of the liability claim. Following a further pretrial conference on 6 May 2025, a settlement in principle was achieved, subject to the execution of minutes of settlement and court approval.

[28] On 15 May 2025, I made an order approving the form and content of the Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing and the Notice Plan. The settlement motion hearing date was set for 8 September 2025 in Ottawa.

[29] The formal Settlement Agreement was entered into on 29 July 2025.

The Proposed Settlement

[30] The proposed settlement amount, to be contributed to by UOHS and the University (it being acknowledged that Dr. Nadon is impecunious), is $21,050,000.

[31] In addition, approval is sought for disbursement out of the settlement funds of the following:

a. Claims Administrator fees in the amount of approximately $169,500;

b. Claims Adjudicators' fees in the amount of approximately $171,760;

c. $125,000 to the Ontario Ministry of Health (OHIP) in full and final satisfaction of its subrogated claim;

d. $6,119,565.06 plus HST of $795,543.46 for Class Counsel fees, in accordance with the Contingency Fee Agreements entered into with the Representative Plaintiffs;

e. $20,000 (inclusive of HST) to Flaherty McCarthy LLP for payment of disbursements;

f. $165,189.81 (inclusive of HST) to the Law Foundation of Ontario, Class Proceedings Fund ("CPF") for payment of disbursements;

g. Honoraria of $20,000 to each of the Representative Plaintiffs, Ellina Rabbat and N.T., to be paid from the net settlement amount;

h. $1,348,344.17 to the CPF, representing its 10% levy calculated on the net settlement amount after deductions for Class Counsel fees and disbursements with HST, administration and adjudication costs, and the payment to OHIP.

[32] Put in tabular form, the financial elements of the settlement proposal can be seen as follows:

Received from Defendants	$21,050,000.00
LESS Class Counsel Disbursements	-$20,000.00
LESS CPF Disbursements	-$165,189.81
LESS OHIP subrogated recovery	-$125,000.00
LESS Verita Admin. Fees	-$169,500.00
LESS Drs. Wolfe/Jaffe Adjud. Fees	-$171,760.00
SUBTOTAL	$20,398,550.19
LESS 30% contingency fee	-$6,119,565.06
LESS 13% HST on fees	-$795,543.46
SUBTOTAL	$13,483,441.67
LESS 10% CPF Levy	-$1,348,344.17
TOTAL	$12,135,097.50

[33] The Distribution Protocol contained within the settlement agreement provides for general damages and treatment compensation across four harm categories, and also allows claimants in categories two to four to claim from an Economic Loss Fund.

[34] The protocol was developed with input from the proposed Claims Administrator (Verita Global) and Claims Adjudicators, Dr. David Wolfe and Dr. Peter Jaffe. Counsel for the plaintiffs described the claims process, as "non-adversarial, confidential, and trauma-informed" and designed to be "fair, flexible, and inclusive" with support available in both English and French.

[35] The Claims Period is to run for 180 days commencing 15 January 2026. Verita Global will notify Class members, administer claims through a secure portal, and issue compensation following adjudication.

[36] I would record that although Dr. Nadon did not financially contribute to the settlement, he was represented by counsel who, on his behalf, addressed the court during the settlement approval process to express Dr. Nadon's deep regret and apology for the harm that he has caused.

Legal Principles

[37] Section 27.1(5) of the Class Proceedings Act provides that court shall not approve a settlement unless it determines that the settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class members.

Settlement Must Be Fair, Reasonable and in the Best Interests of the Class Members

[38] The test is not whether the settlement meets the demands of a particular class member. A settlement need not be perfect. It need only fall "within a zone or range of reasonableness". That some class members are disappointed or unsatisfied will not disqualify a settlement because the measure of a reasonable settlement is not unanimity or perfection: Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General), 83 O.R. (3d) 481, at para. 10; Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 40 O.R. (3d) 429, at para. 9, aff'd , 41 O.R. (3d) 97, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 372; Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society, 1999, 103 O.T.C. 161, at paras. 68-73; Smith v. National Money Mart, 2010 ONSC 1334, at paras. 17-21 (rev'd. in part on other grounds, 2011 ONCA 233); Davidson v. Solomon (Estate), 2020 ONSC 2898, at para. 59.

[39] When considering the approval of negotiated settlements, the court may consider, among other things: (a) likelihood of recovery or likelihood of success; (b) amount and nature of discovery, evidence or investigation; (c) settlement terms and conditions; (d) recommendation and experience of counsel; (e) future expenses and likely duration of litigation and risk; (f) recommendation of neutral parties, if any; (g) number of objectors and nature of objections; (h) the presence of good faith, arms-length bargaining and the absence of collusion; (i) the degree and nature of communications by counsel and the representative parties with class members during the litigation; and (j) information conveying to the court the dynamics of and the positions taken by the parties during the negotiation: Dabbs, at 440-41 (O.R.); Parsons, at paras. 71-72; Smith, at para. 19; Davidson, at para. 60.

[40] These factors are guidelines rather than rigid criteria. The court will typically employ these factors to compare and contrast what would likely be achieved at trial. In any given case, some criteria may be given more or less weight than others: Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corp., 40 C.P.C. (6th) 62, at para. 8. The court will also consider the desirability of the certainty and immediate availability of a settlement over the probabilities of failure, or of a whole or partial success later at a trial.

[41] The court will then examine the fairness and reasonableness of the terms and the scheme of distribution under the proposed settlement: Goyal v. Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2020 ONSC 739, at para. 35.

[42] Public policy favours the settlement of complex disputes. Where settlement has been reached through arm's length negotiations and is being presented for approval by experienced class counsel, the court is entitled to assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is being presented with the best reasonably achievable settlement: Wein v. Rogers Cable Communications Inc., 2011 ONSC 7290, at para 20; Przybylska v. Gatos Silver, Inc., 2024 ONSC 2196, at para. 10.

Legal Fees

[43] The representative plaintiffs entered into a contingency fee agreement with Flaherty McCarthy LLP on 8 May 2018, which provides, inter alia, that class counsel's legal fees shall be 30% of the amounts recovered by the class under any judgment or settlement, plus applicable taxes.

[44] The existence of an executed contingency fee agreement does not displace the requirement for court approval of the fees to be paid to class counsel.

[45] Factors relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the fees of class action lawyers include: (a) the factual and legal complexities of the matters dealt with; (b) the risk undertaken, including the risk that the matter might not be certified; (c) the degree of responsibility assumed by the lawyers; (d) the monetary value of the matters in issue; (e) the importance of the matter to the class; (f) the degree of skill and competence demonstrated by the lawyers; (g) the results achieved; (h) the ability of the class to pay; (i) the expectations of the class as to the amount of the fees; and (j) the opportunity cost to the class action lawyers in the expenditure of time in pursuit of the litigation and settlement: Smith, at paras. 19-20.

[46] A contingency fee arrangement is, however, presumptively to be given effect to unless: (i) the representative plaintiffs did not fully understand or accept the agreement; (ii) the contingency amount is excessive; or (iii) the award would be so large as to be unseemly or otherwise unreasonable: Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, 2013 ONSC 7686, at para. 9; Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, 2025 ONSC 4497, at para. 91.

Discussion

[47] As already noted, there were no objections to the amount of the settlement. Nor should there have been. The settlement amount was arrived at after a lengthy series of negotiations. The parties were represented by experienced and highly skilled counsel. Other participants included counsel in related coverage litigation involving UOHS and its insurers.

[48] Although the liability of Dr. Nadon was incontestable, quantum of damages and the liability of the other defendants was robustly disputed.

[49] On the issue of damages, the report of Drs. David Wolfe and Peter Jaffe projected a wide range of possible damage experienced by individual claimants, depending on the level of intrusiveness of the sexual abuse they were subjected to, and the enduring harmful consequences of Dr. Nadon's conduct.

[50] Class counsel and the defendants relied on caselaw that yielded markedly different damages and liability assessments, which necessitated compromise as part of negotiations.

[51] With a projected class size of between 150 and 200 women, the gross average allocation per claimant produced by the settlement proposal would be somewhere between $105,250 and $140,333.

[52] On the issue of liability, and as already alluded to, throughout the litigation UOHS and the University asserted that they were not independently negligent for what happened to the Class members. They further maintained that Dr. Nadon was not their employee, but, rather, an independent contractor. As such, they denied vicarious liability for his actions.

[53] It therefore became necessary for Class counsel to establish:

a. an evidentiary foundation to support a finding of vicarious liability based on the test in Bazley v. Curry, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 534; and/or

b. independent negligence on the part of UOHS and the University arising from their failure to respond to complaints and other warning signs that should have alerted them to Dr. Nadon's activities, or to put in place policies and practices that would have better safeguarded Dr. Nadon's patients from harm.

[54] I am satisfied that, having regard to the range of outcomes on the issues of liability and damages, as well as the resources available to fund the settlement (including insurance), that the overall settlement amount is both fair and reasonable.

[55] I turn next to some of the concerns that were raised concerning the payments (other than to Class members) to be made out of the settlement fund, and about the claims process.

The Claims Period

[56] Mr. Eckart submitted that the claims period was too short and should be extended to twelve months. He reasoned that claims processes involving historical assaults ought to provide claimants with enough opportunity not only to learn about the claims process through adequate notice, but also provide them with enough time to seek assistance, address, and to begin processing the harm that they have endured, and describe the impact of that harm accurately. Progressive disclosure recognises that memories of traumatic events are often suppressed or can cause great mental distress to survivors when shared or processed.

[57] In response, Class counsel advise that they are already in contact with over 150 Class members, and that the proposed Notice Plan will ensure broad outreach to others. They submit that the claims period strikes the right balance between maximising engagement by Class members with the claims process, and ensuring the distribution of settlement funds to Class members within a reasonable time.

[58] While there have been longer claims periods in other comparable class action settlements, I would observe that the claims period does not open until 15 January 2026, some four months hence, and will conclude in mid-July 2026. Accordingly, I am satisfied that a claims period which will remain open until ten months from now is fair and reasonable.

Is the Claims Process Sufficiently Trauma-Informed?

[59] The principal criticism of the claims protocol is that it is not sufficiently trauma-informed. As Mr. Eckart put it, the process has "good bones" but should be improved. He submits:

Class action settlements provide a unique opportunity for parties to design claims processes that can reduce the likelihood and impact of re-traumatization that claimants may experience as they navigate a civil justice proceeding. The proposed settlement in this case, like many other recent settlements involving sexual assaults, has been described by the parties as "trauma-informed". While the Objector recognizes that the proposed settlement includes some indices of being trauma-informed, there are several aspects of this settlement that could be improved to further reduce the likelihood of re-traumatization.

[60] Judicial support for the important effect that a trauma-informed process can achieve to minimise the trauma inherent in the legal process can be found in the recent decision of Akbarali J. in S. v. Ukraine International Airlines, 2024 ONSC 3303, at para. 99 (aff'd 2025 ONCA 587):

It is not one that aims to heal the trauma that participants in the process have experienced. It is not about manners or kindness. It is about adapting our processes in a way that seeks to minimize the trauma that the legal process itself can create, and it is about understanding how a person's trauma might inform or affect their interactions with the legal system. A trauma-informed process can thus operate to remove barriers to just outcomes, and enhance public respect for, and the legitimacy of, the administration of justice.

[61] The objector points to a number of deficiencies with the claims protocol which undermine its claim to be trauma-informed, including:

a. Claimants will be required to describe their injuries and harms committed by a trusted male doctor to be assessed and adjudicated by other male Claims Adjudicators. Although the adjudicators are undoubtedly well-qualified, the gender dynamic is a particular concern for the Objector who, since learning of Dr. Nadon's breach of trust, has been apprehensive of consulting with other male health practitioners.

b. The process does not provide sufficient assistance to claimants. Class members are left without legal support to navigate the claims process which may lead to unfiled or inaccurate claims and worsened mental health outcomes for claimants.

c. There should be a package of resources provided to claimants to enable them to access emotional and mental health supports that may be required. An example can be found in Ukraine International Airlines at paras. 102-103 and appendices.

[62] In responding to the concerns raised by the Objector, Mr. Brown assured the court and Class members that he and his colleagues would remain available to Class members to assist with the claims process, and that information about resources that Class members can access to find additional supports will be provided.

[63] Class counsel acknowledged the Objector's concern that the Claims Adjudicators are male. They will, however, lead a small team that includes female and bilingual adjudicators, so that Class members can indicate preferences about who they speak with (assuming a conversation is needed at all - in most cases, claims will be assessed entirely in writing, without oral interviews). Where interviews are required, they will be trauma-informed, optional in format, and guided by survivor choice.

[64] Unlike adjudication of claims by a court, where claimants have no ability to select the gender or background of a judicial decision-maker, the claims protocol put forward by the plaintiffs could have made provision to address the concerns of the Objector (and, no doubt, other Class members). As Justice Akbarali observed, a shift to a more trauma-informed legal system will evolve one hearing at a time. That said, given the assurance provided by Class counsel that Class members who wish to deal only with a female member of the adjudication team will be able to do so, I would not withhold approval of the settlement because the two decision-making Claims Adjudicators are male.

OHIP Subrogated Claim

[65] When compensation is received for injuries caused by another's negligence or wrongdoing, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care may will typically be entitled to recover its costs for health care and medical treatment provided to the injured party from the wrongdoer: Health Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.6, sections 30-36 and R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 552, s. 39.

[66] OHIP has agreed to settle its subrogated claims – past, present and future – arising from health care and medical treatment provided to Class members, for $125,000. While it would have been open to OHIP to waive its subrogated claim – as its Quebec counterpart, the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, elected to do – it seems likely that at trial OHIP would have been able to assert a far higher claim, which Class counsel would have been bound by law to advance.

[67] Furthermore, there is no principled ground upon which the court could deny approval of a subrogated claim by OHIP supported by appropriate evidence.

Class Proceedings Fund Levy

[68] Since 1992, the Class Proceedings Fund, administered by the Law Foundation of Ontario, has provided financial support to approved class action plaintiffs for legal disbursements, and indemnifies plaintiffs for costs that may be awarded against them in funded proceedings, in return for a levy on the proceeds of the funded litigation, prescribed by regulation.

[69] Where, as in the present case, plaintiffs in a class proceeding have obtained financial support from the Class Proceedings Fund, a legislated ten percent levy is payable to the Fund out of the amount awarded or the settlement funds recovered in the class proceeding: Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, and O. Reg 771/92, s. 10.

[70] The court does not have discretion to adjust the levy payable. However, the Class benefitted not only from the Fund's financial support, but, also, from the indemnity that the representative plaintiffs would have received from the Fund had there been an adverse costs award against them.

Amount of Honoraria

[71] Class counsel submit that the representative plaintiffs, Ellina Rabbat and N.T., have been far more than nominal or symbolic plaintiffs. Rather, they have remained involved and engaged throughout the seven and a half years' duration of this litigation:

They participated in lengthy interviews with Class Counsel. They reviewed pleadings and evidence. They provided detailed instructions at every critical stage of the litigation. They have also served as the face of this case, and whose names were placed on the public record, in the case of Ms. Rabbat.

Each of them was subjected to questioning about deeply personal, painful, and private experiences. They prepared for those examinations with care, answered with dignity, and advanced the credibility of the proceeding through their testimony.

They also contributed meaningfully to the resolution of this case. Both Ms. Rabbat and N.T. worked closely with Class Counsel in preparing for mediation and in the lead-up to the pre-trial conferences. They reviewed the draft terms of settlement. They gave thoughtful feedback on the proposed adjudication structure. And they endorsed the final agreement on behalf of the Class.

[72] The payment of honoraria to representative plaintiffs is the exception rather than the general rule. In Doucet v. The Royal Winnipeg Ballet, 2023 ONSC 2323 (Div. Ct.), at para. 92, Matheson J. held that modest payment to a representative plaintiff could be available in exceptional circumstances. Such payments "should foster the goals of class proceedings while addressing significant concerns about an apparent conflict of interest between recipients of these payments and other class members".

[73] No objection is taken in the present case to the principle that the representative plaintiffs merit receipt of honoraria. However, UOHS submitted that the proposed amount for each of the representative plaintiffs is too high. In Doucet, at para. 116, the court noted that the range of honoraria approved by Ontario courts was between $5,000 and $15,000 (in Doucet, an honorarium of $7,500 was approved).

[74] In the present case, notice of the proposal to request payment of honoraria to the representative plaintiffs was given in advance. The proposed amount, while at the upper end of what might be regarded as appropriate, is not out of step with the 2025 value of the $15,000 honoraria granted to the representative plaintiffs in Dolmage v. HMQ, 2013 ONSC 6686.

[75] In my view the role of the representative plaintiffs has been exceptional. N.T. shared her lived experience of being sexually assaulted by Dr. Nadon in front of all decision makers attending the pre-trial, which assisted the parties in reaching a resolution after years of litigation. Both representative plaintiffs participated in examinations for discovery which required them to re-live their trauma. In doing so, they spared scores of other victims from having to do the same.

[76] Ultimately, in addition to their ongoing involvement assisting counsel as the litigation proceeded, these women exposed themselves to re-traumatisation for the benefit of all Class members.

[77] In such circumstances, I am not inclined to adjust the proposed honoraria.

Legal Fees

[78] The contingency fee agreement in this case was clear, transparent, and has not been contested.

[79] As Belobaba J. observed in Cannon, at para. 12, the contingency fee of 33.3% in that case was in line with the percentages typically charged in the personal injury area. Indeed, as recently noted by Morgan J. in David v. Loblaw, 2025 ONSC 2792, at para. 42, while courts are not bound by the terms of contingency fee agreements, and have the discretion to set a fee agreement aside where it would otherwise not be fair and reasonable for the class members, there is no statutory cap on fee agreements in Ontario class actions and, typically, contingency fee percentages ranging from 15% to 33% enjoy presumptive validity.

[80] In the absence of any suggestion that the contingency fee of 30% in this case is excessive, unseemly or otherwise unreasonable, the court should, as Belobaba J. bluntly stated in Cannon, at para. 7, accept the agreed-upon contingency fee as presumptively valid, and "avoid all of the mind-numbing bluster about the time-value of work done or the risks incurred".

Conclusion and Disposition

[81] For the foregoing reasons the proposed settlement is approved, and I have signed the draft order provided to me by Class counsel.

[82] It would be fatuous to suggest that the Class members will soon be able to put their experiences as victims of Dr. Nadon behind them. The receipt of compensation cannot repair the harm that has been done. It can only be hoped that it will ameliorate the effects of that harm. What can be said with certainty, though, is that as a result of the efforts of everyone concerned with achieving this settlement, Class members will be relieved from the cloud of ongoing litigation. That, at least, should provide a measure of comfort and closure.

[83] A great deal of work has been done by all of the parties and their lawyers (and more work lies ahead). Counsel have conducted themselves throughout with civility, mutual respect and consummate skill. The administration of justice has been well served.

Mew J.

Released: 17 September 2025