Court File and Parties
CITATION: Wang et al. v. Qi et al., 2026 ONSC 2594
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-85039
DATE: 26/05/01
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: JIEHUI WANG (by her Litigation Guardian, Chunpu Dai), CHUNPU DAI, JIEHUIA WANG, JIEJING WANG, JIEZHENG WANG, FANG DAI, and XINYU DAI (by her Litigation Guardian, Fang Dai)
Plaintiffs
-and-
JIA QI, UNION TOUR EXPRESS INC., CRUICKSHANK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, COCO PAVING INC., JANE DOE(S), JOHN DOE(S), JUPITER LEGEND CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL VISION HOLDINGS CORPORATION and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario)
Defendants
BEFORE: Justice Sylvia Corthorn
COUNSEL: Jessica Fullerton, for the plaintiffs Brigitte Morrison, for the defendant, Jia Qi Rachel Cooper and Martin Thompson, for the defendant, Union Tour Express Inc.
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
[1] This action is one of six actions commenced following a collision, which occurred in June 2018, involving a motorcoach bus travelling on Highway 401 near Prescott, Ontario (“the Bus”). The Bus veered off the road and collided with a rocky outcropping, which runs adjacent to the highway. The passengers on the Bus were tourists from China on the second leg of a North American tour.
[2] Jiehui Wang and Chunpu Dai are husband and wife. They were passengers on the Bus; both sustained injuries as a result of the collision. For ease of reference, I refer to the couple by their respective first names.
[3] The injuries Jiehui sustained are described in the motion materials as “extraordinarily serious”. Jiehui’s injuries include a severe traumatic brain injury, which was treated by two surgeries (a craniotomy and a revision surgery), resulted in significant cognitive deficits, and has left Jiehui requiring 24-hour attendant care. Other injuries Jiehui sustained include almost total loss of vision in her right eye. Last, Jiehui is left with significant facial and surgical scarring.
[4] The other plaintiffs in the action are Chunpu; the couple’s son, Fang Dai; the couple’s granddaughter (and Fang Dai’s daughter), Xinyu Dai; and Jiehui’s three siblings.
[5] After a comprehensive settlement of the claims in all actions was negotiated, I became the case management judge. In that role, I released a series of endorsements and rulings related to procedural and substantive matters. The endorsements and rulings address, amongst other topics,
a) the monetary amount of the global settlement negotiated on behalf of the plaintiffs in all actions;
b) apportionment of the settlement funds between the plaintiffs, collectively, in the six actions;
c) the plaintiffs’ pursuit of claims against only the Bus driver (Jia Qi) and the tour operator (Union Tour Express Inc.);
d) interest accruing on settlement funds, pending court approval in the actions in which one or more of the plaintiffs is a party under disability; and
e) other procedural and substantive matters.
[6] On the motion now before the court, the plaintiffs request approval of (a) the settlement of the claims on behalf of Jiehui and the minor plaintiff, Xinyu Dai; (b) the respective contributions of Jiehui and Xinyu towards payment of the fee portion of the proposed solicitor-client account (“the Account”) related to the tort action; (c) the respective contributions of Jiehui and Xinyu towards disbursement accounts related to the tort action; and (d) the proposed management of the net settlement funds payable to each of Jiehui and Xinyu.
[7] The plaintiffs also request approval of the dismissal, without costs, of the claims against, and crossclaims by or against, the non-paying defendants. The paying defendants are Jia Qi and Union Tour Express Inc.
[8] For the reasons set out below, the relief requested is granted.
The Settlement of Jiehui Wang’s Claim
[9] From the settlement funds payable to the plaintiffs in this action, Jiehui is to receive a total of $1,235,345.67. That amount is comprised of $1,094,598.51 for damages and interest and $140,747.16 for fees (including HST).
[10] Jiehui will also, at a later date, receive her pro rata share of interest, which is accruing on settlement funds since the date on which the global settlement amount was paid by the defendants’ insurer into an interest-bearing bank account. As of the date of the motion record now before the court (January 2026), approximately $37,000 in interest had accrued on the settlement funds allocated to all plaintiffs in the Wang action. Jiehui’s share of the accumulated interest is estimated to be $28,000.
[11] The supporting affidavit filed in accordance with r. 7.08(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, is from John Lundrigan. In his affidavit, Mr. Lundrigan provides a detailed explanation in support of (a) plaintiffs’ counsel’s assessment, for the purpose of mediation, of the damages to which Jiehui is entitled; (b) the reasons for adjustments to that assessment – specifically to facilitate the global settlement; (c) the significance of a claim against Jiehui for hospital expenses; and (d) the settlement of Jiehui’s claim for Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABS”). The settlement of Jiehui’s SABS claim is the subject of a separate application for court approval.
[12] Based on Mr. Lundrigan’s evidence, I am satisfied that the settlement of Jiehui’s claim for damages, interest, and costs is reasonable and in her best interests. The settlement is approved.
The Settlement of Xinyu Dai’s Claim
[13] From the settlement funds payable to the plaintiffs in this action, Xinyu is to receive a total of $19,294.93. That amount is comprised of $17,096.59 for damages and interest, and $2,198.34 for fees (including HST). Xinyu will, at a later date, receive her pro rata share of interest that is accruing on settlement funds since the date on which the global settlement funds were paid into an interest-bearing trust account. Xinyu’s share of the accumulated interest is estimated to be $440.
[14] As of the date of the collision, Xinyu was 3.5 years old. She and her father lived with Jiehui and Chunpu, in a multi-level residential home. Jiehui and Chunpu were helping to raise their granddaughter. Jiehui played a significant caregiving role in her granddaughter’s life – including walking her granddaughter to school every day.
[15] When Jiehui and Chunpu eventually returned to China, Xinyu and her father moved out of the family home. They did so to provide Jiehui with the quiet environment she required to promote recovery from her injuries.
[16] Prior to the collision, Jiehui and her husband, son, and granddaughter engaged in shared activities, including travelling together. As a result of Jiehui’s injuries, the family members no longer travel together. In addition, the amount of time Xinyu spends with her grandmother has significantly diminished both qualitatively and quantitatively.
[17] Mr. Lundrigan’s affidavit includes a detailed explanation in support of (a) plaintiffs’ counsel’s assessment, for the purpose of mediation, of the damages to which Xinyu is entitled; and (b) the reasons for adjustments to that assessment – specifically to facilitate the global settlement.
[18] I am satisfied that the settlement of Xinyu’s claim is reasonable and in her best interests. The settlement is approved.
The Solicitor-Client Accounts
a) The Fees
[19] The plaintiffs retained Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP (“the Firm”) pursuant to a contingency fee agreement. The stipulated contingency is 25 percent of the total recovered for damages and interest.
[20] The relief sought on the motion does not include approval of the contingency fee agreement. The Firm proposes to charge fees on a quantum meruit basis. The proposed fees are equivalent to 25 percent of the amount recovered by the plaintiffs for damages and interest.
[21] I will start with the total amount of the proposed fees. The amount recovered for all plaintiffs for damages and interest is $1,250,414.92. The Firm proposes to charge the plaintiffs fees totaling $312,603.73 (25 % x $1,250,414.92), plus HST of $40,638.48 (13% x $312,603.73).
[22] The plaintiffs request approval for,
a) Jiehui to contribute $273,649.62 towards fees (25 % of $1,094,598.51), plus HST of $35,574.45 (13 % x $273,649.62) – for a total of $309,224.07; and
b) Xinyu to contribute $4,274.15 (25 % x $17,096.59), plus HST of $555.63 (13 % x $4,274.15) – for a total of $4,829.78.
[23] At paragraphs 163-174 of his affidavit, Mr. Lundrigan reviews the factors the plaintiffs ask the court to consider when determining the request for approval of the contributions of Jiehui and Xinyu towards payment of the Firm’s account. The factors Mr. Lundrigan reviews include the following factors:
• The significant risks to recovery given the number of passengers on the bus (28), the fact that several defendants are based in the United States, and the possibility that some of the potentially at-fault parties would be based in China;
• The broad scope of the work and the complexity of advancing claims in the context of multi-action (six actions in total) litigation;
• The time expended by the Firm’s lawyers and non-lawyer employees to,
attend at 20 or more case conferences;
address insurance coverage issues arising from the fact that the paying defendants are insured pursuant to a policy of insurance issued in the United States;
prepare for and participate in a global mediation; and
prepare for and participate in multiple motions to address procedural issues (i.e., service of documents) and to address substantive issues including approval and apportionment of the global settlement, how interest on the global settlement funds is to be addressed, and approval of the settlements of the parties under disability.
[24] The topics listed do not provide an exhaustive description of the nature, extent, and complexity of the work done by the Firm.
[25] Mr. Lundrigan’s evidence is that, as of January 1, 2026, the fees for time docketed by the timekeepers who worked on the file exceed the total proposed fees by approximately $150,000. The proposed fees represent approximately 64 percent of the fees for time docketed as of January 1, 2026. Additional work has been done since that date – including the preparation of the motion record now before the court.
[26] Plaintiffs’ counsel were diligent and thorough in their approach to this complex, multi-party litigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel took the lead on a number of issues addressed by the court to date. Plaintiffs’ counsel were creative and cautious in dealing with various challenges and hurdles arising from the fact that their clients reside in China.
[27] I am satisfied that the proposed contributions for fees and HST are reasonable. The proposed contributions for each of Jiehui and Xinyu are approved.
[28] The materials filed in support of the motion refer to the fees the Firm proposes to charge based on 25 percent of the interest that will ultimately accrue on the plaintiffs’ settlement funds, all of which remain in an interest-bearing account pending court approval as requested on the motion now before the court. Approval is requested, in principal, of that portion of the fees the Firm proposes to charge in the context of the tort action.
[29] The pro rata sharing of settlement funds, as between the plaintiffs in this action, is stipulated in the materials filed in support of the motion and relied on to approve Jiehui’s and Xinyu’s respective contributions towards payment of fees explicitly identified as of this date.
[30] The plaintiffs have taken an efficient, cost-effective, and proportionate approach to address approval of the fees the Firm proposes to charge based on interest accruing on the settlement funds, which remain in an interest-bearing bank account. The relief requested in that regard is granted. No further motion is required for approval of Jiehui’s and Xinyu’s respective contributions towards fees (plus HST) made based on their pro rata shares of the accumulated interest – when paid.
c) Disbursements
[31] The plaintiffs request approval regarding payment of (a) disbursements incurred to the date of the global settlement; and (b) disbursements incurred since that date.
[32] The disbursements incurred as of the date of the global mediation are in the amount of $31,133.86 (including HST). The settlement funds allocated to the plaintiffs, from the global settlement funds, include $31,133.86 – specifically for disbursements. I approve application of that amount, from the settlement funds, towards payment of disbursements.
[33] The disbursements incurred since the date of the global mediation are in the amount of $13,925.59 (including HST). The Firm proposes that Jiehui and Xinyu each pay their pro rata share of that amount. I approve the payment of $12,190.46 (87.5 % x $13,925.59) by Jiehui and $190.78 (1.37 % x $13,925.59) by Xinyu towards the smaller of the two disbursement accounts.
Management of the Net Settlement Funds
a) Jiehui Wang
[34] By my calculation, the net settlement funds payable to Jiehui, as of the date of this endorsement, are $913,931.46:
Damages and pre-judgment interest $ 1,094,598.52
Fees (including HST) $ 140,747.16
Total recovery $ 1,235,345.67
Contribution towards the Account
Fees $ 273,649.62
HST on fees $ 35,574.45
Disbursements $ 12,190.46
Total Contribution $ 321,414.53
Net settlement funds $ 913,931.14
[35] Both Jiehui and Chinpu continue to reside in China. The proposal is for Chinpu to manage the net settlement funds payable to Jiehui. The plaintiffs request relief pursuant to r. 7.09 – approving payment of the net settlement funds other than to the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice.
[36] Jiehui was 63 years old at the date of the collision. She is now in her early seventies. Based on Mr. Lundrigan’s evidence, addressing Jiehui’s life expectancy, I find that Jiehui’s life expectancy is such that she may live into her late eighties or even her nineties.
[37] It is not possible to purchase a structure in Canada that provides for payments to a resident of China. Plaintiffs’ counsel and Chinpu diligently considered the options available in China for the management of the net settlement funds. They consulted with and obtained assistance from lawyers in China with expertise in the requisite areas of the laws of China.
[38] Those same lawyers in China assisted Jiehui and Chinpu, in 2025, to have Jiehui grant Chinpu the equivalent in China to a power of attorney for property in Ontario.
[39] In his capacity as Jiehui’s litigation guardian in this proceeding, and, more generally, Jiehui’s primary caregiver and ‘attorney for property’, Chinpu proposes to invest the net settlement funds in a series of staggered six-year investments with a state-owned bank in China. The intention is that the six-year duration of the investments will provide a good rate of interest. Staggering the investments will provide Jiehui and Chinpu with flexibility in the management of the funds and access to funds required for unexpected expenses. Investing the funds with a state-owned bank minimizes the risks associated with uncertainties in the financial and banking system(s) in China.
[40] I am satisfied that the proposed management of the net settlement funds payable to Jiehui is reasonable and in her best interests. The proposal is approved and the relief requested pursuant to r. 7.09 is granted.
b) Xinyu Dai
[41] By my calculation, the net settlement funds payable to Jiehui, as of the date of this endorsement, are $14,274.37:
Damages and pre-judgment interest $ 17,096.59
Fees (including HST) $ 2,198.34
Total recovery $ 19,294.93
Contribution towards the Account
Fees $ 4,274.14
HST on fees $ 555.63
Disbursements $ 190.78
Total Contribution $ 5,020.56
Net settlement funds $ 14,274.37
[42] Both Xinyu and her father, Fang Dai, continue to reside in China. The proposal for the management of the net settlement funds payable to Xinyu is for the funds to be placed in a term deposit account at the state-owned bank at which Fang Dai does his banking. Xinyu is now 11 years of age. The proposal is for the funds (a) to remain in the term deposit account until Xinyu reaches the age of majority (age 18 years); and (b) to be paid to her at that time. Fang Dai does not propose to utilize the funds in the next seven years.
[43] Xinyu and her father face the same restrictions and hurdles, as Jiehui and Chunpu do, regarding how settlement funds from a Canadian action can be received and managed in China.
[44] In Ontario, when the net settlement funds payable to a minor plaintiff fall below $35,000, the funds may be paid to a parent with whom the minor resides or to a person who has lawful custody of the minor: Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 51. If the minor plaintiff now before the court lived in Ontario, the court would have the discretion, pursuant to the aforementioned statutory provision, to approve payment of the net settlement funds to the minor plaintiff’s father.
[45] I am satisfied that it is reasonable and in Xinyu’s best interests for the net settlement funds to be managed by Fang Dai as proposed. In summary, the relief requested pursuant to r. 7.09 is granted.
[46] Xinyu will be entitled to an additional sum, from the interest accruing on settlement funds. It is reasonable and in Xinyu’s best interests that all settlement funds payable to her – including the additional interest – be managed by Fang Dai, as proposed. A term addressing management of the interest payment to follow is included in the order made at the conclusion of this endorsement.
Dismissal of the Action, Without Costs (as Against the Non-Paying Defendants)
[47] All aspects of the settlement of this action are now approved – from the allocation of funds from the global settlement to the management of net settlement funds payable to Jiehui and Xinyu To bring the action to a conclusion, the plaintiffs request an order dismissing, without costs, the main action against, and all crossclaims by or against, the non-paying defendants.
[48] The dismissal, without costs, of the actions against and crossclaims by or against the non-paying defendants was addressed over time in one or more of the court’s earlier endorsements and rulings – with the net effect being that all parties to the action expect that the relief granted on this motion will include an order dismissing, without costs, the main action against, and all crossclaims by or against, the non-paying defendants.
[49] Regarding the defendants, Jia Qi and Union Tour Express Inc., the plaintiffs intend to address the dismissal of the action against and crossclaims between the paying defendants on the motion to follow regarding apportionment of interest accruing on the settlement funds in the interest-bearing account.
[50] The order made below includes an order dismissing, without costs, the main action against, and all crossclaims by or against, the non-paying defendants.
Disposition
[51] The court makes the following order:
a) Jiehui Wang
The settlement of Jiehui Wang’s claim for damages, pre-judgment interest, and the fee portion (including HST) of costs, in the amount of $1,235,345.67, plus a further sum in an amount to be determined, the latter representing Jiehui Wang’s pro rata share of interest on the settlement funds allocated to this action in the context of global mediation, is approved.
The sum of money referred to in paragraph 1, above, shall be paid to Jiehui Wang, or as directed on her behalf, from the monies previously paid by the non-party, the Safety Insurance Company, on behalf of the defendants, Jia Qi and Union Express Tour Inc., as part of the settlement of this action and all related actions.
The solicitor-client account of Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP (“the Firm”) to Jiehui Wang, in the amount of $321,414.53, inclusive of fees and HST, and disbursements subsequent to the date of the global mediation (September 2024), for work on behalf of Jiehui Wang, is approved and shall be paid from the settlement funds referred to in paragraph 1, above.
In accordance with paragraph 1, above, Jiehui Wang shall also pay to the Firm for legal fees, 25 percent of her pro rata share of the interest accumulated on the settlement funds (excluding the costs contributions), plus an additional amount for HST thereon.
Following payment of the Firm’s account, pursuant to paragraph 3, above, the net settlement funds payable to Jiehui Wang, in the amount of $913,931.14, shall be paid to Jiehui Wang, to be managed by Chunpu Dai, by sending a wire transfer or wire transfer(s) to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Suzhou branch (“the Bank”), after State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) pre-approval is obtained, the latter as and if required by the Bank.
A further sum, to be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 4, above, representing Jiehui Wang’s pro rata share of interest that has accumulated on the settlement funds, net of payment of the Firm’s additional account, shall be paid to Jiehui Wang on the terms set out in paragraph 5, above.
b) Xinyu Dai
The settlement of the minor plaintiff, Xinyu Dai’s claim for damages, pre-judgment interest, and the fee portion (including HST) of costs, in the amount of $19,294.93, plus a further sum in an amount to be determined, the latter representing Xinyu Dai’s pro rata share of interest on the settlement funds allocated to this action in the context of global mediation, is approved.
The sum of money referred to in paragraph 7, above, shall be paid to Xinyu Dai, or as directed on her behalf, from the monies previously paid by the non-Party, the Safety Insurance Company, on behalf of the defendants, Jia Qi and Union Express Tour Inc., as part of the settlement of this action and all related actions.
The solicitor-client account of the Firm to Xinyu Dai, in the amount of $5,020.56, inclusive of fees and HST, and disbursements subsequent to the date of the global mediation (September 2024), for work on behalf of Xinyu Dai, is approved and shall be paid from the settlement funds referred to in paragraph 7, above.
In accordance with paragraph 7, above, Xinyu Dai shall also pay to the Firm for legal fees, 25 percent of her pro rata share of the interest accumulated on the settlement funds (excluding the costs contributions), plus an additional amount for HST thereon.
Following payment of the Firm’s account, pursuant to paragraph 9, above, the net settlement funds payable to Xinyu Dai, in the amount of $14,274.37, shall be paid to Xinyu Dai, by sending a wire transfer or wire transfer(s) to Agricultural Bank of China, located in Suzhou, China, after SAFE pre-approval has been obtained, as and if required by the Agricultural Bank of China, to be managed by Fang Dai until Xinyu Dai reaches the age of 18 years.
A further sum, to be determined in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 10, above, representing Xinyu Dai’s pro rata share of interest that has accumulated on the settlement funds, net of payment of the Firm’s additional account, shall be paid to Fang Dai on the terms set out in paragraph 11, above.
The net settlement and additional funds managed in accordance with paragraph 11, above, shall forthwith be paid to Xinyu Dai upon her attaining the age of 18 years.
c) Other Matters
The Firm’s statement of account for disbursements from 2018 to September 2024, in the amount of $31,133.86 is approved and shall be paid from monies paid by the non-party, the Safety Insurance Company, on behalf of the defendants, Jia Qi and Union Tour Express Inc., explicitly towards disbursements as part of the settlement of this action and all related actions.
The main action against, and all crossclaims by or against, the defendants, Cruickshank Construction Limited, Coco Paving Inc., Jupiter Legend Corporation, Universal Vision Holdings Corporation and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario (represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario) are dismissed on a without costs basis.
There shall be no costs of this motion.
[52] I thank plaintiffs’ counsel for the detailed and thoughtfully prepared materials filed on the motion. I once again commend counsel for all parties for the level of co-operation demonstrated throughout this proceeding and the cost-effective and efficient approach with which this action and the related actions were resolved.
Released: May 1, 2026 ___________________________________
Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn
CITATION: Wang et al. v. Qi et al., 2026 ONSC 2594
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-85039
DATE: 26/05/01
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: JIEHUI WANG (by her Litigation Guardian, Chunpu Dai), CHUNPU DAI, JIEHUIA WANG, JIEJING WANG, JIEZHENG WANG, FANG DAI, and XINYU DAI (by her Litigation Guardian, Fang Dai)
Plaintiffs
-and-
JIA QI, UNION TOUR EXPRESS INC., CRUICKSHANK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, COCO PAVING INC., JANE DOE(S), JOHN DOE(S), JUPITER LEGEND CORPORATION, UNIVERSAL VISION HOLDINGS CORPORATION and HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO (represented by the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Ontario)
Defendants
COUNSEL: Jessica Fullerton, for the plaintiffs
Brigitte Morrison, for the defendant, Jia Qi
Rachel Cooper and Martin Thompson, for the defendant, Union Tour Express Inc.
HEARD: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
Madam Justice Sylvia Corthorn
Released: May 1, 2026