Finality Prevails Despite Rule 7.08 Non-Compliance: Ratnasingam v. Balasubramaniam
Overview
In Ratnasingam v. Balasubramaniam, 2025 ONCA 898[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal revisited the narrow circumstances in which a final order and settlement may be set aside where the claim belonged to a person under disability and the procedural protections of Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure were not followed. Writing for a unanimous court, Gomery J.A. dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the primacy of finality, even in the face of serious lawyer misconduct and non-compliance with Rule 7.08.
Background
Anojan Ratnasingam (“Mr. Ratnasingam”), was catastrophically injured in a 2010 motor vehicle accident. Although he lacked capacity as a result of those injuries, his tort action was settled with the defendant’s insurance company in 2013 without the appointment of a litigation guardian and without court approval under Rule 7.08.[2] The settlement also settled a second tort action against the car’s driver and owner by Mr. Ratnasingam’s fellow passenger.[3]
Mr. Ratnasingam’s lawyer, unbeknownst to him or his fellow passenger, forged settlement documents, misappropriated the settlement proceeds, and obtained a consent dismissal of the action.[4] The fraud only came to light years later, after the lawyer’s death.
In 2024, Mr. Ratnasingam and his fellow passenger (collectively, the “Appellants”) moved to set aside both the consent dismissal and the underlying settlement, and to appoint a litigation guardian for Mr. Ratnasingam.[5]
The Motion Judge’s Decision
The motion judge dismissed the motion, applying the five-factor framework endorsed in Book v. Cociardi[6]:
- Whether the party was under a disability;
- Whether the settlement funds could be repaid;
- Whether the defendant acted in good faith or had knowledge of the disability;
- Whether the settlement was unfair or unreasonable; and
- The timeliness of the motion.
While incapacity was established, the motion judge found that the insurer acted in good faith, without knowledge of the incapacity, and that the settlement itself was neither improvident nor unconscionable.[7] Those findings were determinative.
The Court of Appeal’s Analysis
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s reasoning in full. It confirmed that non-compliance with Rule 7.08 does not, on its own, justify setting aside a final order. Rather, a motion to do so must be assessed using the Book framework, with particular attention to finality and fairness to the opposing party.[8]
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that the settlement should be undone because it would not have been approved had a proper Rule 7.08 motion been brought. The focus remains on whether the settlement was substantively unreasonable.[9]
The Court also agreed that Rule 59.06(2) – permitting an order to be set aside on the basis of fraud – offered no meaningful relief, as setting aside the dismissal alone would leave the settlement and release intact.[10] Nor did the Court find error in the motion judge’s treatment of Rule 7.09 or the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, emphasizing that neither displaces the principle that final orders are set aside only in exceptional circumstances.[11]
Key Takeaways and Conclusion
Ratnasingam confirms that non-compliance with Rule 7.08 does not, on its own, justify setting aside a final settlement involving a person under disability. The governing question remains whether the settlement was unreasonable or unconscionable, assessed through the Book framework.
The Court reaffirmed the primacy of finality: even serious lawyer misconduct will not warrant reopening concluded litigation where the opposing party acted in good faith and the settlement itself was fair. Procedural safeguards and the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction do not displace the high threshold required to set aside
—
[1] Ratnasingam v. Balasubramaniam, 2025 ONCA 898 [Ratnasingam].
[2] Ibid at para 8.
[3] Ibid at paras 4.
[4] Ibid at paras 6-7.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] Book v. Cociardi, 2022 ONSC 3125, aff’d 2024 ONCA 589 [Book]; Ratnasingam, supra note 1 at para 11.
[7] Ibid at para 13.
[8] Ibid at para 18.
[9] Ibid at paras 19-20.
[10] Ibid at para 21.
[11] Ibid at paras 22-26.
Menu
Written by: Emily Caza
Posted on: February 4, 2026
Categories: Commentary
Overview
In Ratnasingam v. Balasubramaniam, 2025 ONCA 898[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal revisited the narrow circumstances in which a final order and settlement may be set aside where the claim belonged to a person under disability and the procedural protections of Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure were not followed. Writing for a unanimous court, Gomery J.A. dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the primacy of finality, even in the face of serious lawyer misconduct and non-compliance with Rule 7.08.
Background
Anojan Ratnasingam (“Mr. Ratnasingam”), was catastrophically injured in a 2010 motor vehicle accident. Although he lacked capacity as a result of those injuries, his tort action was settled with the defendant’s insurance company in 2013 without the appointment of a litigation guardian and without court approval under Rule 7.08.[2] The settlement also settled a second tort action against the car’s driver and owner by Mr. Ratnasingam’s fellow passenger.[3]
Mr. Ratnasingam’s lawyer, unbeknownst to him or his fellow passenger, forged settlement documents, misappropriated the settlement proceeds, and obtained a consent dismissal of the action.[4] The fraud only came to light years later, after the lawyer’s death.
In 2024, Mr. Ratnasingam and his fellow passenger (collectively, the “Appellants”) moved to set aside both the consent dismissal and the underlying settlement, and to appoint a litigation guardian for Mr. Ratnasingam.[5]
The Motion Judge’s Decision
The motion judge dismissed the motion, applying the five-factor framework endorsed in Book v. Cociardi[6]:
While incapacity was established, the motion judge found that the insurer acted in good faith, without knowledge of the incapacity, and that the settlement itself was neither improvident nor unconscionable.[7] Those findings were determinative.
The Court of Appeal’s Analysis
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s reasoning in full. It confirmed that non-compliance with Rule 7.08 does not, on its own, justify setting aside a final order. Rather, a motion to do so must be assessed using the Book framework, with particular attention to finality and fairness to the opposing party.[8]
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that the settlement should be undone because it would not have been approved had a proper Rule 7.08 motion been brought. The focus remains on whether the settlement was substantively unreasonable.[9]
The Court also agreed that Rule 59.06(2) – permitting an order to be set aside on the basis of fraud – offered no meaningful relief, as setting aside the dismissal alone would leave the settlement and release intact.[10] Nor did the Court find error in the motion judge’s treatment of Rule 7.09 or the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, emphasizing that neither displaces the principle that final orders are set aside only in exceptional circumstances.[11]
Key Takeaways and Conclusion
Ratnasingam confirms that non-compliance with Rule 7.08 does not, on its own, justify setting aside a final settlement involving a person under disability. The governing question remains whether the settlement was unreasonable or unconscionable, assessed through the Book framework.
The Court reaffirmed the primacy of finality: even serious lawyer misconduct will not warrant reopening concluded litigation where the opposing party acted in good faith and the settlement itself was fair. Procedural safeguards and the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction do not displace the high threshold required to set aside
—
[1] Ratnasingam v. Balasubramaniam, 2025 ONCA 898 [Ratnasingam].
[2] Ibid at para 8.
[3] Ibid at paras 4.
[4] Ibid at paras 6-7.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] Book v. Cociardi, 2022 ONSC 3125, aff’d 2024 ONCA 589 [Book]; Ratnasingam, supra note 1 at para 11.
[7] Ibid at para 13.
[8] Ibid at para 18.
[9] Ibid at paras 19-20.
[10] Ibid at para 21.
[11] Ibid at paras 22-26.
Author
View all posts