Sophie Luesby

This decision concerns the approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement, the reasonableness of solicitor-client accounts, and the management of settlement funds for plaintiffs under disability in a personal injury action.

The court reviews the proposed legal fees for both Stephen and Adriana Duffy, the structure of the settlement payments, and the adequacy of the arrangements for the management of funds, ultimately approving the proposals as reasonable and in the best interests of the parties.

The court considered a motion to remove the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as litigation guardian for Stephen Duffy, following a new capacity assessment that found him capable of managing property.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Stephen was no longer a party under disability within the meaning of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, and the PGT remains as litigation guardian.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found he was not entitled to an income replacement benefit because he knew or ought reasonably to have known his motorcycle was uninsured.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in applying the contextual objective test and overlooked evidence that the MTO and dealership accepted his insurance certificate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence and that no error of law or fact was made in the original decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant was excluded under s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule for driving without valid insurance.

The applicant claimed he was a victim of fraud, having purchased what he believed was a valid policy from an unknown individual in a parking lot.

The Tribunal applied a contextual objective test and found that an ordinary rational person with the applicant's age, education, and prior experience purchasing insurance ought reasonably to have known the insurance card was fraudulent and the vehicle was uninsured.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

This is an interim ruling on a motion for court approval of a tentative settlement reached in a personal injury action involving parties under disability.

The plaintiffs sought approval for the settlement of Stephen Duffy's and Adriana Duffy's claims, approval of contingency fee retainer agreements, approval of a proposed structured settlement for Stephen, and an order dispensing with service of the motion record on the defendants.

The court approved the settlement amounts for both Stephen and Adriana, and the disbursement accounts.

However, the court adjourned the approval of the proposed solicitor-client fee accounts for both Stephen and Adriana, and the proposed structured settlement for Stephen, due to insufficient supporting evidence.

The request to dispense with service of the motion record on the defendants was also denied, requiring the plaintiffs to provide specific details on claimed privileges.

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval for a settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits claim and leave to amend her notice of application.

The court granted leave to amend, approved the $100,000 settlement, and approved a solicitor-client account for fees and disbursements, with the settlement funds to be paid directly to the applicant upon her 18th birthday.

The court declined to approve the contingency fee agreement due to deficiencies.