Thomas H. Percival

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a minor's settlement.

The court previously approved the settlement amount and legal fees but adjourned the matter to determine whether the net funds should be paid into an RESP instead of to the Accountant of the Superior Court.

Based on the litigation guardian's financial expertise and the benefits of government grants, the court found that payment into an RESP was more advantageous and in the minor's best interests.

The settlement and payment structure were approved.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for approval of a $40,000 all-inclusive settlement arising from an incident where a refrigerator door fell on the infant plaintiff in the defendant's grocery store.

The court approved the settlement amount and the 30% contingency fee, noting the fee must be calculated on the settlement amount excluding costs.

However, the court adjourned the request to pay the funds into an RESP rather than to the Accountant of the Superior Court, requiring further evidence that the RESP is more advantageous.

Following a trial where the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was found not liable for a streetcar accident involving a four-year-old child, the TTC sought its costs of the proceeding.

The court declined to award costs to the TTC, noting that the child could not be at fault and that the TTC, as a public service, should bear the costs of defending such claims where the injured party is not at fault.

The court also declined to award costs for the TTC's counterclaim against the child's parents, resulting in no order as to costs for any party.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration hearing until the applicant attended a section 42 insurer's examination.

The applicant refused to attend the examination unless she was permitted to videotape it, citing a prior injury during an assessment and cognitive deficits.

The arbitrator applied the principles from Bellamy v. Johnson and found that the applicant's insistence on videotaping the assessment was not an unreasonable refusal to attend, provided the recording is conducted with safeguards to ensure objectivity and minimize disruption.