Introduction
[1] Wassem Elayouti was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 26, 2012. Mr. Elayouti’s vehicle was rear-ended when it was stopped at a red light at the intersection of Hunt Club Road, near Bridle Path Drive, in the City of Ottawa. The other plaintiffs are Mr. Elayouti’s wife, Jenan Zammar, and their three children. Although the affidavit evidence does not address the subject, it appears that Ms. Zammar was not in the vehicle when the accident occurred.
[2] The evidence on the motion is that the claims on behalf of the children are made pursuant to s. 61 of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3. Once again, although the affidavit evidence does not address the subject directly, it appears that none of the children were in the vehicle when the accident occurred.
[3] The action is scheduled to proceed to trial in June 2018. A settlement of the accident is said to have been negotiated. It calls for the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the all-inclusive sum of $75,000. There is no evidence as to how that sum was arrived at arithmetically. A breakdown of the $75,000 for damages, pre-judgment interest, and costs is not included in the record.
[4] The motion is for an order approving the portion of the settlement related to the claims on behalf of the children. It is proposed that the children’s claims be dismissed without costs and that they shall receive no monetary amount from the settlement.
[5] The relief identified in the notice of motion also includes a request for an order that all of the claims (i.e. including the claims of Mr. Elayouti and Ms. Zammar) be dismissed without costs.
Disposition
[6] I am unable to grant the motion based on the current record. The deficiencies identified in the motion record, and discussed below, shall be addressed in additional materials to be filed in support of the motion for approval of the settlement of the children’s claims. I remain seized of the motion.
[7] A copy of this endorsement shall be served on the defendants.
[34] I find that the CFRA does not comply with the requirements of the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.15, and the regulations thereunder. There are a number of deficiencies in the CFRA, including that it does not provide the client with an example of how the contingency fee will be calculated. It also fails to inform the client that he may seek independent legal advice with respect to the terms of the CFRA. There are other deficiencies in the CFRA. It is not necessary to address them at this stage of the approval process.
[35] Specifically because the CFRA is non-compliant, court approval of the terms of the CFRA is required. If QTMG intends to seek that approval, the requisite materials shall be filed at the same time as the additional materials with respect to the motion for approval of the settlement of the children’s claims are filed. The materials need to address approval of the CFRA and, assuming the CFRA is approved, the account proposed pursuant to the CFRA.