Ruling attributes favourable outcome for person under disability to counsel’s skill
In a personal injury matter arising from a trip-and-fall incident, the Ontario Superior Court fixed the fee at $65,000, reduced from the proposed amount of $73,885.27 requested by counsel of the plaintiff, a person under disability.
In Sharifzadeh, represented by his Litigation Guardian, Nejad, et al. v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto, 2026 ONSC 4325, 2026 ONSC 4325, the plaintiff tripped and fell on Oct. 3, 2020.
Due to the incident, the plaintiff sustained a nasal fracture, two broken teeth, and soft-tissue injuries to his shoulders, neck, and back.
The plaintiff brought a proceeding against the City of Toronto. His preexisting cervical stenosis and cognitive decline – assessed as chronic macroangiopathic disease – complicated the assessment of damages.
At a pretrial conference on Dec. 2, 2025, the parties reached the proposed settlement of $280,000, including:
As a part of the proposed settlement, the plaintiff consented to a contingent fee retainer agreement for 33 percent of all amounts recovered, as drafted by his counsel.
Under the fee agreement, the plaintiff’s counsel calculated and requested a fee of $73,885.27, plus harmonized sales tax (HST) of $9,605.09. The proposed net amount that the plaintiff would receive would be $165,281.60.
Last Apr. 21, the court received a request for the approval of the proposed settlement.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice revised then accepted the proposed settlement. Thus, the court signed and issued the draft judgment, including the following payments:
The Superior Court recognized that the plaintiff achieved the favourable settlement proposal due to counsel’s skill and ability. The court also accepted that the contingent fee retainer agreement was reasonable at the time of its execution.
However, the court described the proposed contingent fee, to be charged as of the present hearing, as unreasonable upon considering the evidence and applying the factors in Henricks-Hunter v. 814888 Ontario Inc. (Phoenix Concert Theatre), 2012 ONCA 496.
The court noted that one would expect the firm to be efficient in investigating liability, documenting damages, and progressing the matter, given the firm’s regular advertising of its personal injury aptitude to the southern Ontario public.
The court acknowledged that counsel performed the following work:
However, the court took issue with counsel’s multiple law clerks, who needed to familiarize themselves with the matter’s intricacies and likely incurred additional time.
“Counsel submitted and I recognize not all time incurred on the matter was recorded and the actual time spent was higher,” wrote Justice Grant Dow for the court. “Unfortunately, the 28 pages of time docketed and produced includes many very minor time amounts (one tenth of an hour being the smallest entry) which undermines this submission.”
The Superior Court fixed the fee at $65,000, which it deemed appropriate upon balancing factors such as:
“I am mindful of the need to ensure access to justice for injured persons under disability and that this type of legal service should be valued and willingly undertaken by members of the Bar with expertise in this field,” Dow said.
Here are some previous Superior Court decisions involving trip-and-fall incidents.
In a personal injury case arising from a trip-and-fall accident due to the plaintiff’s attempt to access a Toronto Transit Commission bus, the Superior Court issued a June 17 decision finding nothing untoward about a contingency fee arrangement that proposed a fee of 33 percent for tort claims and an alternate hourly rate of $900.
The Superior Court of Justice made an Aug. 15, 2025, decision staying a trip-and-fall action for lack of jurisdiction upon seeing no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the tort dispute and deeming Alberta a more convenient forum.
The Superior Court issued an Apr. 19, 2024, decision dismissing a lawsuit against the Town of Ajax in connection with a 2011 incident during which a plaintiff tripped and fell because of a sidewalk defect.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
