The global settlement, inclusive of costs, was $1,719,510.
In accordance with the CFA, counsel sought fees in the amount
of $466,000 plus GST/HST of $37, 280 plus disbursements of
$84,510, for a total of $587,790.
 The motion judge requested and received further information “to substantiate the claim for one third of the AB Claim”.
He met with counsel twice and ultimately held a hearing on
December 18, 2014.
 He reviewed the jurisprudence in relation to CFAs and
particularly in relation to those involving claims both in tort and
for accident benefits. In particular, he noted Raphael Partners v.
Lam (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 417,  O.J. No. 3605 (C.A.), as well
as Henricks-Hunter (Litigation guardian of) v. 814888 Ontario
Inc. (c.o.b. Phoenix Concert Theatre),  O.J. No. 3207, 2012
ONCA 496, among others. He also noted Justice Wilkins’ decision in Adler (Litigation guardian of) v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. (2008), 92 O.R. (3d) 266,  O.J.
No. 2666 (S.C.J.), which as he noted “highlighted the difference
between a CFA requiring court approval in a tort claim and
an AB claim”.
 The motion judge approved the CFA in relation to the tort
claim and approved the agreement in relation to that claim. He
allowed fees in the sum of $183,333 but made the amount inclusive of HST. This amount reflected one-third of the $550,000
amount allocated for damages.
 He then reduced the amount sought for legal fees in relation to the AB claim from $280,500 to $170,000 again, such figure to be inclusive of HST. There was no issue in relation to the
disbursements which were allowed as claimed.
 In his reasons, in paras. 25-40, the motion judge considered the nature of each of the distinct claims made.
 He pointed out the difficulty he had in relation to the
reconstructed “docket” entries.
 He accepted the distinction in the jurisprudence between
tort and accident benefit claims and contrasted the risk assumed
by the firm in the tort claim compared to the relative lack of risk
on the AB claim.
 There was a serious risk that there could be no recovery
on the tort claim but no such risk existed in relation to the
AB claim — it wasn’t a question of “if”, but rather “how much”
would be recovered with the limits prescribed by the legislation.
 In his able argument, Mr. Adair emphasized the excellent
result achieved by counsel in having achieved an overall settlement in excess of $1.7 million. He stressed the “high risk” nature
of the tort claim, the length of time counsel’s firm carried the