3 total
The court approved a $4.5 million medical malpractice settlement and structured annuity for a minor who sustained a severe brain injury.
This is a motion for court approval of a settlement in a complex medical malpractice case involving a person under disability, Nathaniel Hughes.
The plaintiffs sought approval of a $4.5 million settlement, including a structured annuity, for injuries sustained by Nathaniel as an infant at Peterborough Regional Health Centre.
The court reviewed the settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering the risks of litigation and the best interests of the person under disability.
The court found the settlement, including legal fees and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable given the complexities and risks, and approved it.
The court approved a $5 million minor settlement in a medical negligence case and granted a partial sealing order to protect solicitor-client privilege.
This was a Rule 7.08 motion for court approval of a $5 million settlement for a minor, Ethan Ajayi, in a medical negligence action.
Unusually, the plaintiffs' counsel did not support the settlement terms but was instructed by the litigation guardian to seek approval.
The court approved the settlement and the associated legal fees, finding it to be in the minor's best interests given the inherent risks of litigation, particularly concerning causation and liability.
The decision also addressed the granting of a partial sealing order to protect solicitor-client privileged information, while declining the request for an in camera hearing, thereby balancing the principle of open courts with the need to preserve fair trial rights.
Application alleging discrimination in special education funding for private school students dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicants, children with disabilities attending a private school, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because they did not receive certain educational supports funded by the respondents.
The respondents requested dismissal of the application, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success given the Divisional Court's decision in Cooper v. Ontario, which held that O. Reg. 386/99 is not discriminatory.
The Tribunal agreed, finding it was bound by the Divisional Court's determination that the regulation does not discriminate on the basis of disability.
The application was dismissed.