Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LALTAPAUL RAMDHANIE, an adult under disability, by his Litigation Guardian BHAGWANDAI RAMDHANIE
Applicants
– and –
CAA INSURANCE COMPANY
Respondent
COUNSEL:
Manisa Kafai, for the Applicants
Marcus Lunardo, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 11, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
CALLAGHAN J.
1This is a motion for a settlement pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
2The Applicant, Laltapaul Ramdhanie, is an adult under disability and lacks capacity to manage property. This proceeding is therefore brought by his Litigation Guardian, being his mother, Bhagwandai Ramdhanie.
3The settlement addresses the Applicant’s claim for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) with the Respondent, CAA Insurance Company, under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O Reg 34/10. The proposed settlement is for the all inclusive amount of $7,000.
Facts
4The Applicant is 55 years old. He suffers from a long-standing cognitive impairment resulting from neonatal meningitis, which caused brain injury and intellectual disability.
5His mother is and has been his caregiver.
6The Applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 28, 2022. and was briefly taken to hospital and then discharged. Some shoulder tenderness was noted. Aside from some chiropractor treatment shortly after the accident from Optimo Clinic, the medical records disclose no ongoing treatment or follow-up. The records disclose that the accident-related injuries were within the Minor Injury Guideline framework.
Discussion
7In deciding whether to approve a settlement, the court is obligated to determine in all the circumstances whether the settlement is reasonable and in the best interest of the child: Spicer v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3221. In Spicer, RSJ Firestone described the responsibility this way:
[14] When considering whether to approve the proposed settlement, the test is whether the settlement is in the best interests of the person under disability. Approval does not depend on a comparison of what would have been awarded at trial, but rather an assessment of whether the settlement is reasonable and in the party’s benefit given the risks of litigation and the desire of the party to settle: Garry D. Watson & Derek McKay, Holmested and Watson: Ontario Civil Procedure, e-looseleaf (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2023), at § 22:23. See e.g. Oliveira v. Tarjay Investments Inc., 2006 8870 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4.
8Given the minor nature of the injuries, I find the settlement to be reasonable and in the best interest of the Applicant.
9It is proposed that the funds be paid out to the law firm in trust. The money is then to be disbursed to Optimo Clinic which provided treatment to the Applicant ($1,890) and to the law firm for its disbursements of $800.00 and its legal fees which it claims to be 30% of the award. I have no issue with the amounts to be paid, other than the legal fees. The remainder is to be paid to the Applicant’s mother to be used for his benefit.
10On the issue of the fee, the court has a responsibility to ensure the fees charged to a person under disability are reasonable. The case law makes it clear there is a distinction as to what a reasoanble fee is for a tort action and an accident benefit claim. As stated by Justice Edwards, “there is a significantly different degree of risk undertaken by lawyers with respect to an accident benefit claim versus the degree of risk undertaken in a tort claim”: Kevin Garnett by his Litigation Guardian Amanda Foster v. The Estate of Joseph Eldon Deceased by its Executor Cecil James Eldon et al, 2025 ONSC 5527, at para. 15. As a result, contingency fees range from 5-20% for accident benefit settlements. Moreover, the law firm has filed no dockets or other information outlining what steps the firm took on behalf of the Applicant . Indeed, the affidavit was signed by an articling student rather than a lawyer responsible for the file.
11This is clearly a small case. The matter was not complicated. The 30% proposed fee does not accord with the case law and is too high. A fee of $1,150 is more appropriate given the lack of detail, the level of success and the fact this is a SAB claim.
12Accordingly, the amounts to be paid are:
AB Settlement
$7,000.00
Less: Disbursements
($547.48)
Less: Legal fees including HST
($1.150)
Less: Legal Application Fee
($243.00)
Less: Optimo Clinic
($1,890.00)
Net recovery for the Applicant
$3,169.52
13It is proposed that the net recovery of $3,1692 be paid to the Applicant’s mother and be used for the benefit of the Applicant. The mother has been taking care of her son over the years. She testified that she would use the money for her son’s needs. have no reason to doubt her ability to manage this small amount of money for her son’s sole benefit. Accordingly, I am prepared to exercise my discretion under r. 7.09(1) to have the money paid other than into court. Otherwise, more funds will be incurred seeking payment out of court diminishing the already de minimis net recovery. I order that the net recovery of $3,169.52 be paid to the mother, Bhagwandai Ramdhanie, who is to use the funds for the sole benefit of her son, Laltapaul Ramdhanie.
14Accordingly, the money shall be paid to Lubman & Associates Professional Corporation, in trust to be distributed as set out above.
15Counsel is asked to resubmit a draft order in accordance with the above decision. The order shall specify that the funds payable to the mother are to be used for the sole benefit of her son, Laltapaul Ramdhanie.
Callaghan J.
Released: March 27, 2026