Bedoya v. TTC et al., 2026 ONSC 3549
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER FERNANDEZ BEDOYA, by his Litigation Guardian, MARY ALEXANDRA BEDOYA
Plaintiff
– and –
TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, CITY OF TORONTO, JANE DOE and JOHN DOE V B N PAVING LIMITED
Defendants
Robert Lamot, for the Plaintiff
Priti Gupta, for the Defendant, City of Toronto
HEARD: In writing
REASONS FOR DECISION
John callaghan j.
1This is a motion for an approval of a settlement under rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. This action arises out of a trip and fall accident that occurred on February 1, 2019. At that time, the Plaintiff, Christopher Alexander Fernandez Bedoya, was 21 years old, having a date of birth of September 14, 1997.
2Christopher suffers from global disability development which results in him having difficulty with speech and expressing himself. His mother is his litigation guardian.
3When trying to access a TTC bus, Christopher fell forward onto hitting the bus because of snow and ice buildup where the bus stopped. Christopher sued the City of Toronto, TTC and the winter maintenance contractor.
4As a result of the accident, he suffered a hematoma and bruising to his shin. He had several medical attendances. Fluid remained in the shin area for which message therapy was recommended. It is not clear if massage therapy is continuing but it appears that the issue is stable and there is no significant impact due to the injury.
5The matter settled for $15000 with the TTC paying $5,000 and the contractor paying $10,000. Both the litigation guardian and counsel accept this is a reasonable settlement in the circumstances, particularly as Christopher’s disability makes it difficult for him to express himself.
6In terms of the settlement funds, the proposed breakdown of payments is as follows:
i) To the Plaintiff, Christopher, for damages: $7,485.32
ii) Disbursements and HST: $2,545.87
iii) To Merricks Law Group, for legal fees: $4,150.96
iv) To Merricks Law Group, for HST for legal fees: $539.62
v) To Ministry of Health, Subrogation Unit: $278.23
Discussion
7In deciding whether to approve a settlement, the court is obligated to determine, in all the circumstances, whether the settlement is in the best interest of the person under disability: Spicer v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3221. In that case, RSJ Firestone described the responsibility this way:
14When 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 CanLII 8870 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4.
8Given the modest injuries which have subsided, the settlement is within the range of reasonable outcomes in the circumstances. I accept that the settlement is in the best interest of Christopher.
9In terms of the payout, it is proposed that the money be paid to Christopher. His mother advises that Christopher does his own banking at Bank of Montreal as he is good with money. She does not have the power of attorney over Christopher’s property.
10Given that Christopher is capable of doing his own banking, the money shall be payable to Christopher.
11The order also proposes to pay a portion to the lawyer for fees. The lawyer acted on a contingency fee basis. A contingency fee agreement is not binding on a person under a disability unless approved by the court: Morris v. Sparling, 2007 CanLII 38122 (Ont. S.C.) at para. 12. As a result, where there is a CFRA and a rule 7.08 approval request, the court is required to assess whether the CFRA is fair and to ensure that the fee being charged is reasonable: Solicitor’s Act RSO 1990, c S.15, s. 24 and 28 and Contingency Fee Agreements, O Reg 195/04, s 5 ;Henricks-Hunter v. 814888 Ontario Inc. (Phoenix Concert Theatre) 2012 ONCA 496; Cookish v. Paul Lee Associates Professional Corp., 2013 ONCA 278, [2013] O.J. No. 1947, at para. 48; Raphael Partners v. Lam (2002), 2002 CanLII 45078 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.) , at para. 37.
12There is nothing untoward about the Contingency Fee Arrangement (“CFA”). It sets a proposed fee of 33% for tort claims. The lawyer testifies that he incurred slightly more than 34 hours in time. The CFA set an alternate hourly rate of $900. The proposed fee of $4,150.98 is significantly less than the hourly rate that might have been charged. The litigation guardian accepts the fees as reasonable. Given the hours incurred, the risk undertaken and the result achieved, the fee of $4,150.98 is reasonable and approved.
13The draft order shall be issued.
Callaghan J.
Released: June 17, 2026