Mohammed v. Tao: Court Approval of a Minor’s Settlement Under Rule 7
In Mohammed et al. v. Tao et al., 2026 ONSC 4904, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the approval of a settlement involving a minor plaintiff pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[1]
Background
The action arose from a December 2016 motor vehicle accident involving Rabia Mohammed (“Rabia”).[2] Although Rabia survived the accident, she continued to experience pain and died in July 2018 from an overdose of pain medication prescribed in connection with that pain.[3]
The Plaintiffs, Rabia’s three children, brought claims under the Family Law Act for the loss of their mother’s care, guidance and companionship.[4] By the time of settlement, two of the children had reached the age of majority. The youngest, Asim Mohammad (“Asim”), was a minor at the time of the decision and was therefore a person under disability for the purposes of Rule 7.
The parties agreed to settle the claims on a full and final basis for an all-inclusive amount of $450,000. Asim was allocated $135,000, representing 30% of the settlement.[5]
Court Approval Under Rule 7
The Court relied on Spicer v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3221, to confirm that when asked to approve a settlement involving a person under disability, its role is to determine whether the proposed settlement is in that person’s best interests.[6]
Although Asim had not suffered physical injuries in the accident, his claim arose from the loss of care, guidance and companionship resulting from his mother’s injuries and subsequent death. The Court noted that Asim was to receive 30% of the settlement, representing a slightly greater share of the settlement than his siblings, who each received 25%, while the Estate received the remaining 20%.[7]
The Court was also required to approve the legal fees attributable to Asim’s claim. From his gross entitlement of the settlement of $135,000, $49,302.51 was to be deducted for legal fees, disbursements and taxes, leaving a net recovery of $85,697.49.[8] Having regard to the nature of the action, the time required, the risk assumed by counsel, and the fact that the other plaintiffs had accepted the fees as reasonable, the Court approved the fees.[9]
In the circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the settlement and the legal fees were reasonable and approved both. Asim’s net recovery of $85,697.49 was ordered to be paid into Court in an interest-bearing account pursuant to Rule 7.09 until he reaches the age of majority or further order of the Court.[10]
Takeaway
Although a short decision, Tao et al. provides a useful reminder of the Court’s supervisory role in settlements involving minors and other persons under disability. Under Rule 7, the Court must be satisfied that the proposed settlement is in the person’s best interests and that any legal fees attributable to their recovery are reasonable. Where the person is a minor, their net recovery will generally be paid into Court until they reach the age of majority or further order of the Court.
—
[1] 2026 ONSC 4904 [Tao et al.].
[2] Ibid at para 3.
[3] Ibid at para 4.
[4] Ibid at paras 5, 9.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] 2023 ONSC 3221; Tao et al., supra note 1 at para 11.
[7] Ibid at para 12.
[8] Ibid at para 13.
[9] Ibid at para 14.
[10] Ibid at para 15.
Written by: Emily Caza
Posted on: September 24, 2026
Categories: Commentary, Rule 7 Motions
In Mohammed et al. v. Tao et al., 2026 ONSC 4904, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the approval of a settlement involving a minor plaintiff pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[1]
Background
The action arose from a December 2016 motor vehicle accident involving Rabia Mohammed (“Rabia”).[2] Although Rabia survived the accident, she continued to experience pain and died in July 2018 from an overdose of pain medication prescribed in connection with that pain.[3]
The Plaintiffs, Rabia’s three children, brought claims under the Family Law Act for the loss of their mother’s care, guidance and companionship.[4] By the time of settlement, two of the children had reached the age of majority. The youngest, Asim Mohammad (“Asim”), was a minor at the time of the decision and was therefore a person under disability for the purposes of Rule 7.
The parties agreed to settle the claims on a full and final basis for an all-inclusive amount of $450,000. Asim was allocated $135,000, representing 30% of the settlement.[5]
Court Approval Under Rule 7
The Court relied on Spicer v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3221, to confirm that when asked to approve a settlement involving a person under disability, its role is to determine whether the proposed settlement is in that person’s best interests.[6]
Although Asim had not suffered physical injuries in the accident, his claim arose from the loss of care, guidance and companionship resulting from his mother’s injuries and subsequent death. The Court noted that Asim was to receive 30% of the settlement, representing a slightly greater share of the settlement than his siblings, who each received 25%, while the Estate received the remaining 20%.[7]
The Court was also required to approve the legal fees attributable to Asim’s claim. From his gross entitlement of the settlement of $135,000, $49,302.51 was to be deducted for legal fees, disbursements and taxes, leaving a net recovery of $85,697.49.[8] Having regard to the nature of the action, the time required, the risk assumed by counsel, and the fact that the other plaintiffs had accepted the fees as reasonable, the Court approved the fees.[9]
In the circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the settlement and the legal fees were reasonable and approved both. Asim’s net recovery of $85,697.49 was ordered to be paid into Court in an interest-bearing account pursuant to Rule 7.09 until he reaches the age of majority or further order of the Court.[10]
Takeaway
Although a short decision, Tao et al. provides a useful reminder of the Court’s supervisory role in settlements involving minors and other persons under disability. Under Rule 7, the Court must be satisfied that the proposed settlement is in the person’s best interests and that any legal fees attributable to their recovery are reasonable. Where the person is a minor, their net recovery will generally be paid into Court until they reach the age of majority or further order of the Court.
—
[1] 2026 ONSC 4904 [Tao et al.].
[2] Ibid at para 3.
[3] Ibid at para 4.
[4] Ibid at paras 5, 9.
[5] Ibid at para 8.
[6] 2023 ONSC 3221; Tao et al., supra note 1 at para 11.
[7] Ibid at para 12.
[8] Ibid at para 13.
[9] Ibid at para 14.
[10] Ibid at para 15.
Author