Tajinder Gogna

This case concerns the approval of a minor's statutory accident benefits settlement and the determination of legal fees.

The court approved an all-inclusive settlement of $678,400, with a significant portion structured into an annuity for the minor.

However, the court reduced the proposed 25% contingent fee sought by counsel, fixing it at $115,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the contingent fee unreasonable at the time of the hearing despite the retainer agreement being reasonable when entered.

The decision emphasized the court's duty to ensure the settlement terms are in the best interests of the person under disability.

This decision concerns an application for court approval of a settlement involving a minor applicant who sustained injuries from a trip and fall incident at school.

The court assessed the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed $30,000 settlement, inclusive of OHIP's subrogated claim, and the legal fees, which were reduced from a 33% to a 25% contingency fee.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the minor's best interests, noting the non-contentious liability but potential for contributory negligence.

The application was granted, affirming the settlement and the reduced legal fees.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a 4-day jury trial where the plaintiff was successful on liability but found contributorily negligent, resulting in an award of $58,590.09.

The plaintiff sought $206,960.36 in costs, while the defendants proposed $45,400.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and considering Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's requested costs disproportionate and unreasonable due to excessive hourly fees and unnecessary disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff, a minor who suffered a skull fracture when struck by a reversing vehicle, sought court approval of a $620,000 settlement under Rule 7.08.

The court approved the settlement amount but found the proposed 25% contingency fee of $124,576.15 unreasonable given the low risk of non-recovery and the docketed time.

The court reduced the legal fee to $100,000 and ordered the balance of the proceeds to be paid into court for the minor's benefit.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident claim brought a motion to add a proposed defendant to the action after the apparent expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued that the claim against the proposed defendant was not discovered until after the Statement of Defence was received.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to lead evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that the claim was discovered on the date of the accident, especially given that the plaintiff had sent a notice of action to the proposed defendant's insurer prior to issuing the Statement of Claim.

The motion to add the proposed defendant was dismissed.

The defendant, Nicole Vandelden, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action arising from a motor vehicle incident.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that credibility issues required a trial.

The court reviewed extensive evidence, including conflicting accounts from the parties and multiple witnesses, as well as police notes and surveillance video.

Despite the general principle that credibility should be assessed at trial, the court found that the independent witness's evidence was unassailable and unchallenged, making it an exceptional case where the paper record was sufficient to reach a fair and proportionate conclusion.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sued the driver who rear-ended her, as well as the municipality and its bus driver.

Following discoveries, the rear-ending driver admitted liability and the parties agreed to dismiss the action against the municipality and its driver without costs.

Two years later, the municipality brought a motion seeking costs against the co-defendant and the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the municipality's motion, finding it was reasonable for the co-defendant to wait until after discoveries to admit full liability.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff for having to respond to the unnecessary motion.

The moving party sought to set aside service of a statement of claim served outside Ontario or, alternatively, a stay of the action.

The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Pennsylvania involving a Pennsylvania resident defendant and an Ontario resident plaintiff.

The court considered the requirements for service ex juris under Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the real and substantial connection test as articulated in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. The court found the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient connection between the defendant and Ontario and provided inadequate evidence of damages or Ontario-based witnesses.

Service outside Ontario was therefore set aside.