Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Kwaku Owusu Okyere and Prince Owusu Okyere, a minor, by his Litigation Guardian, Kwaku Owusu Okyere Plaintiffs
AND:
Vinita Ramnarine, Ramnarine Ramnarine and, Certas Direct Insurance Company Defendants
BEFORE: Justice A.P. Ramsay
COUNSEL: Elliot Goodman for the Plaintiffs David Ledrew and James Orman for the Defendants
HEARD: In-writing
Endorsement
1The plaintiffs bring this motion in writing under subrule 37.12.1(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on the consent of the parties, for court approval of a settlement of the claims of the minor plaintiff, Prince, pursuant to Rule 7.08(1) of the Rules.
2The plaintiffs rely on a settlement apparently entered into by the parties. The settlement reached by Prince’s litigation guardian is not binding on him unless it has been approved by the court.
3There are Minutes included annexed to the affidavit of the lawyer, Elliott Goodman, which are neither signed nor dated. However, it is clear from his evidence that the parties have reached a settlement, subject to court approving the settlement on behalf of the minor plaintiff, Prince, now age eleven.
4For the reasons below, I approve the settlement under r. 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, I am dismissing the request of the litigation guardian to have the settlement funds payable to the minor plaintiff, Prince, to be paid to him. Finally, I decline to sign the form of the judgment submitted for the reasons stated below.
5Prince’s claims for damages in the proceeding arise because of injuries said to have been sustained by his father, the plaintiff Kwaku Owusu Okyere, in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on August 14, 2021. Prince was not involved in the accident. His claims for damages are advanced under s. 61(2)(e) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3 (“FLA”), for loss of care guidance and companionship because of the injuries suffered by his father.
6Prince’s derivative claims are being advanced by his father, in his capacity as his litigation guardian. Mr. Okyere is also the principal plaintiff. Based on Mr. Okyere’s affidavit, he suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident as well as psychological injury. He has continued his employment and intends to increase towards full time. He has resolved his statutory accident benefit claims. He reached a settlement of all claims, including Prince’s FLA claims, for $50,000 inclusive of all fees, disbursements and HST.
7Of the settlement, $10,000 has been allocated towards settling Prince’s claims on an all-inclusive basis. In my view, the amount of Prince’s settlement is fair and reasonable. Prince was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum before the accident. Mr. Okyere’s evidence is that he continues to care for him. At the time of the proposed settlement, the statutory deductible for FLA claims was $23,395.04. Given the nature of the injuries said to be sustained by Mr. Okyere and the effect of those injuries on him, it is likely that Prince’s claims may not exceed the statutory deductible.
8I am also mindful that the lawyers for the plaintiffs, Goodman Halioua LLP, has agreed to waive all legal fees in connection with Prince’s FLA claims. Therefore, no legal fees or disbursements shall be charged to the minor plaintiff, Prince.
9I am therefore prepared to approve the settlement entered into by the litigation guardian on behalf of the minor plaintiff, Prince.
10I must address two issues though, namely, the request by the plaintiffs to pay the settlement funds directly to the litigation guardian, and the draft judgment that has been submitted for signing.
11The litigation guardian’s affidavit is silent as to what use will be made of the minor’s settlement. This is not a case where the minor requires funds for treatment, rehabilitation or otherwise. In the result, the settlement funds shall be paid into court, which is still the presumption. In my view, more is required for the court to pay the funds out of court. Where, as is the case here, the minor’s claim is derivative, there should be some evidence before the court as to whether the funds will be invested, for the benefit of the minor, and the nature of the investment vehicle.
12On August 8, 2025, Ontario Regulation 173/25 was filed to amend a number of provisions under rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs parties under disability. The recent amendments to r. 7.09, particularly the addition of subsection (1.1), now provides that any money payable to a minor party under an order or a settlement shall be paid into court unless a judge orders otherwise in accordance with sections 47 to 60 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. Prior to the amendments, r. 7.09 provided that money payable to a person under disability must be paid into court unless a judge orders otherwise. The provision applied equally to minors and to incapable adults. The recent amendments now contain separate provisions to address monies payable to a minor and to adults under a disability. Prior to the amendments, an appointment of a guardian of the property of the child was mandatory, pursuant to sections 47 to 60 of the CLRA: O'Connell v. Snyder, 2002 CarswellOnt 1954, at para. 5. Subrule (1.1) now incorporates the provisions of the CLRA referred to by Gordon J. in O’Connell and allows the court greater discretion to pay monies out of court in accordance with the statute and relevant regulation.
13While the amendment provides more clarity on a judge’s discretion regarding payment out of court in the case of minors, and allows the court to make an order for any money payable to a minor party to be paid to a litigation guardian, subject to the specified provisions of the CLRA, I am not satisfied that the funds should be paid to the litigation guardian in this case. Let me explain.
14The default still is that the money is to be paid into court. By virtue of clause (b), the court may resort to s. 51(1.1) of the CLRA which, in combination with O. Reg. 120/21, permits the court to pay moneys payable to a child, if no guardian of property has been appointed, to be paid to a parent, with whom the child resides, of up to $35,000. In this case the litigation guardian is also the parent of the minor plaintiff. However, the presumption remains that settlement funds payable to minors must be paid into court.
15There is good reason for this. Approval of settlements made on behalf of parties under disability is derived from the court’s parens patriae: Wu Estate v. Zurich Insurance Co., (2006), 268 D.L.R. (4th) 670 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 10, leave to appeal refused, [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 289. The jurisdiction is “essentially protective”: Tsaoussis (Litigation Guardian of) v. Baetz (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 257 at 268 (C.A), leave to appeal refused, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 518. The court is called upon to carefully consider not only the proposed settlement, but also the fairness and reasonableness of proposed fees (see Krukowski v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2020 ONCA 631, at para. 24), and, even where there is a guardian of property or attorney for property, this is not automatic: a court will scrutinize what the guardian or attorney’s plans are for management of the money.
16In my view, payment out of court up to the cap should not be rubber stamped in the absence of some explanation as to why the funds should be paid to the litigation guardian. It matters not that the litigation guardian is a parent. To do so would undermine the court’s inherent jurisdiction to protect the interests of the persons under disability. In my view, while the court has discretion to pay money owed to a minor under an order or settlement payable to a litigation guardian up to the cap available under the regulation to the CLRA, more is required, even where the litigation guardian is a parent.
17As for the draft judgment submitted for me to sign, I decline to do so. Several provisions in the draft judgment simply incorporate, by reference, the Minutes of Settlement. A consent judgment is a species of contract: Johnston v. McLean, 2024 ONCA 791, 504 D.L.R. (4th), at para. 14. For example, one of the operative terms of the proposed judgment reads:
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the settlement of the claims of the minor Plaintiff, Kwaku Owusu Okyere, is hereby approved in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement attached hereto as Schedule “A”.
18In addition, no Minutes are annexed to the draft Judgment. Orphaned signed Minutes are before the court but appear to be signed by the same individual for the lawyers on behalf of the parties. Moreover, the proposed judgment includes a provision requiring “the insurer”, whose identity is not disclosed, of the defendants Vinita Ramnarine and Ramnarine Ramnarine to pay the settlement funds to the litigation guardian. Certainly nothing before the court indicates that the unnamed insurer is a party to these proceedings, nor is it clear what authority the court would have to make an order binding the insurer on a rule 7 motion.
19Finally, the draft judgment includes terms that are more expansive than the terms set out in the various versions of the Minutes before me, and includes language best left for a release and not a consent judgment.
20Again, it is not clear what authority the court would have on a motion to approve a settlement of a party under disability to make an order dealing with the liability of the defendants, as requested, “to forever release and discharge” the defendants, “in all respects” “from all claims and demands howsoever arising in relation to the tort claims”. As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Assayag-Shneer v. Shneer, 2023 ONCA 14, 165 O.R. (3d) 302, at para. 40: “Contractual remedies, and restrictions on contractual remedies, that may have been applicable if the parties had only expressed their rights and obligations in a contract cannot simply be transposed onto court-ordered obligations”.
21I therefore make the following order:
i. The settlement of the claims of the minor plaintiff, Prince Owusu Okyere born […..]1, in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of all claims is hereby approved.
ii. There shall be no order as to costs with respect to the claims of the minor plaintiff, Prince.
iii. The settlement funds in the amount of $10,000 shall be paid to the Accountant of the Superior Court to the credit of the minor plaintiff, Prince, to be paid out to him, with accrued interest, upon him attaining the age of 18 or by further order of the court.
iv. Service of the Motion Record on the Office of the Children’s Lawyer is hereby dispensed with.
v. The plaintiffs shall provide an updated draft Judgment, in Word format, to my judicial assistant, within 7 days of this endorsement.
Justice A. P. Ramsay
Date: May 15, 2026