Litigation guardian, counsel accept $15k settlement for trip-and-fall accident
In a personal injury case, the Ontario Superior Court has seen nothing untoward about a contingency fee arrangement that imposed a proposed fee of 33 percent for tort claims and an alternate hourly rate of $900.
In Bedoya v. TTC et al., 2026 ONSC 3549, the plaintiff had a trip-and-fall accident on Feb. 1, 2019. While attempting to access a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus, he fell forward and hit the bus due to snow and ice buildup in the area where the vehicle stopped.
Because of the accident, the plaintiff had a hematoma and bruising on his shin. He had multiple medical attendances and received a recommendation for massage therapy due to fluid remaining in his shin area.
The plaintiff sued the City of Toronto, TTC, and the winter maintenance contractor.
Given his global disability development, which led to difficulty with speech and expressing himself, the plaintiff’s mother acted as his litigation guardian but held no power of attorney over his property.
The parties settled the matter for $15,000. Under the settlement, the TTC would pay $5,000, while the contractor would account for $10,000.
The litigation guardian and counsel accepted the settlement, including the proposed fees, as reasonable in the circumstances, particularly given the plaintiff’s disability, which made it challenging for him to express himself.
The draft order proposed paying a portion as fees to the lawyer, who acted on a contingency fee basis. The lawyer testified that he spent slightly over 34 hours on this matter.
On a motion to approve a settlement under r. 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued the draft order, with the following breakdown for the payment of settlement funds:
Due to the modest injuries that have since subsided, the court described the settlement as within the range of reasonable outcomes under the circumstances and in the plaintiff’s best interest.
The court approved the $4,150.98 proposed fees as reasonable, considering the hours incurred, the risk taken, and the outcome reached. The court noted that the suggested sum was substantially less than the potential amount under the hourly rate.
