Vicki J. Edgar

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor plaintiff who alleged sexual abuse by a classmate.

After addressing deficiencies noted in a prior endorsement, the court found the settlement, including a voluntary reduction in plaintiff counsel's fees, to be reasonable given the significant causation and damages risks involved.

The court approved the settlement, directed the funds to be paid into court, and granted an order sealing the court file to protect the minor's privacy and dignity.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for a consent judgment approving a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor who was allegedly bullied and sexually abused by a classmate.

The court declined to approve the settlement, citing non-compliance with Rule 7.08, discrepancies between the settlement amounts in the release and the draft judgment, insufficient evidence regarding the minor's prognosis, and a lack of justification for deviating from the presumptive requirement to pay settlement funds into court.

The court also directed counsel to address whether a sealing order should be granted to protect the minor's identity.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident after losing control of her car on an icy patch of a municipal road.

She sued the municipality for negligence, alleging a failure to adequately salt the road.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the municipality had met the standard of care by promptly salting the road, though light blowing snow delayed the salt's effectiveness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were well-supported by the evidence and that the municipality had taken reasonable steps to address the winter road conditions.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues for trial concerning where the injured party was seated and whether wearing a seat belt would have mitigated her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed a seat belt would have made no difference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing there were two genuine issues for trial: where the passenger was seated during the crash, and the damages she would have suffered had she worn a seat belt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed seat belt use would have made no difference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.