In practice, I represented many minors or people under disability. All required motions for Court approval for settlements I negotiated on their behalf. Many were returned to me from the Court with the message: not good enough. My staff and I learned our lessons well and got better over time.

Ontario’s Superior Court safeguards the best interests of children and persons under disability through its inherent parens patriae jurisdiction recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada and, in PI settlements, via the approval mechanism in Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure^[1]. (Re Eve, 1986 CanLII 36 (SCC)^[2])

As of June 16, 2025^[3], O. Reg. 50/25^[4] amended Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure significantly in two ways that matter to every personal injury lawyer acting for minors or clients under disability:

(1) Rule 7.08^[5] approval motions are now without notice by default, require redacted filing (with unredacted copies provided only to the judge) and are presumptively decided in writing without attendance—tightening privacy while keeping the Court’s best-interests review front and centre; and

(2) Rule 49^[6] was retitled “Settlement”, with Rule 49.14 codifying prompt disclosure of partial settlement agreements and a new Form 49E^[7], and Rule 49.08 clarifying that any settlement involving a party under disability is not binding without a judge’s approval under Rule 7.08.

These changes reset your settlement workflow. Build decision-ready records that protect privilege. Be ready to deliver unredacted materials to the judge. Diarize immediate disclosure steps whenever partial deals are struck.

Why Some Settlements Need a Judge at All

Not every settlement goes back before a judge.

But if any party is a “person under disability”—a minor, or an adult who lacks capacity in the proceeding—a settlement isn’t binding without Court approval. That’s straight from Rule 7.08(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure^[8].

The definition of “person under disability” is in Rule 1.03 and captures minors and persons who are mentally incapable within the meaning of sections 6 (property) and 45 (personal care) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (SDA)^[9]. In Toronto, counsel are also expected to follow the Superior Court’s best-practice guidance for Rule 7 approvals^[10].

The Approval Test: “Best Interests,” Not “Best Possible”

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s anchor statement remains that it is he Court’s job is to ensure the settlement is in the best interests of the party under disability, not to reconstruct a hypothetical trial award. See Wu (Litigation Guardian of) v. Zurich Insurance Co., 2006 CanLII 16344 (ON CA)^[11].

A practical restatement comes from Spicer v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 3221^[12]. The question is whether the deal is reasonable and beneficial given litigation risk and the party’s preference to settle, not whether it matches some theoretical top-end outcome.

What the Record Must Contain (and Why Thin Records Fail)

Rule 7.08(4) specifies the core paper required:

(a) litigation guardian affidavit explaining facts and why the settlement is in the person’s interests;

(b) lawyer affidavit setting out counsel’s position;

(c) written consent from a minor over 16, unless dispensed with; and

(d) proposed minutes of settlement.

Judges expect a full and frank record that equips them to assess reasonableness without guesswork. Skeletal affidavits, bare memoranda, or missing exhibits invite adjournments or refusal. Spicer underscores that the Court cannot exercise its parens patriae role on half-facts. Fulsome disclosure (including competing medical or functional evidence where relevant) is the price of admission.

Structured Settlements: Escrow First, Approval After

Can you “prefund” a structure before the judge signs the order? Spicer says yes. Placing structured-settlement funds in escrow before approval is appropriate so the Court can review concrete terms and issuer details. No payments flow until approval. If approval is refused, funds are unwound.

Fees, Disbursements, and the Court’s Gatekeeping

Expect the judge to examine legal fees and disbursements as part of the single “is this settlement for the person’s benefit?” inquiry. Ontario Courts repeatedly treat fee approval as tethered to the settlement’s fairness—and where the OCL^[13] or OPGT^[14] recommends approval, that recommendation carries significant weight unless there’s a red flag. Spicer collects and applies these principles

Payment into Court is the Default—Departures Must Be Justified

Rule 7.09^[15] starts from a simple premise that money paid to a person under disability shall be paid into Court, unless a judge orders otherwise. Departures, such as payments to a trustee, guardian, or directly into a structure, require evidence that the alternative truly safeguards the person’s interests (e.g., investment plan, controls on encroachments, and a clear governance solution).

Open-Court Principle After O. Reg. 50/25: Sealing Orders and Service Shortcuts are the Exception

Approval motions under  Rule 7.08 now proceed without notice by default and require redacted public filings with unredacted materials provided only to the judge. However, the Court may direct service (including on the OCL/PGT) and sealing orders remain exceptional under the open-court principle, per Dickson v. Kellett, 2018 ONSC 4920^[16].

“We Have a Deal”—But Do We?

Approval presumes there is a binding settlement. If your “deal” is loose, you risk litigating whether you settled rather than what you settled. The Court of Appeal in Oliveira v. Tarjay Investments Inc., 2006 CanLII 8870 (ON CA)^[17] reminds us that a solicitor of record usually has ostensible authority to bind a client, but that authority can be limited or rebutted on the facts.

Practical Playbook (What Experienced Judges Now Expect)

1) Capacity and Status are Squared Away.
If the party is an adult, tie capacity to the SDA definitions (property and/or personal care) and explain who the litigation guardian is and why. If there’s a guardianship in place, exhibit the order or explain the statutory guardianship route.

2) The Evidentiary Record is Complete, Candid, and Decision-Ready.
Lay out the merits and risks, competing expert opinions, functional impacts, care needs, and future contingencies. If the settlement includes a structure, provide the final printout and issuer details—Spicer’s “escrow-first” approach exists so judges can test the economics of the actual structure, not a hypothetical.

3) Costs and Fees are Justified, Not Assumed.
File the Contingency Fee Agreement (if any), explain time spent, risk taken, result achieved, and how the net to the client compares to realistic litigation outcomes. Where the OCL/OPGT supports the fee and the settlement, say so—Courts give that considerable weight.

4) Money Flow Matches Rule 7.09’s Default (or you’ve earned your exception).
If you want something other than payment into Court, deliver a tight governance plan and specify who holds funds, how they’re invested, when encroachments occur, reporting/account-passing expectations, and the transition at age of majority (for minors).

5) Transparency is the Rule; Secrecy Requires Evidence.
Under the amended Rule 7.08 (O. Reg. 50/25), approval motions proceed without notice by default and require redacted public filings with unredacted copies provided only to the judge. The Court may still direct service where appropriate. Sealing orders remain exceptional and demand concrete, case-specific evidence of serious harm and narrow tailoring—absent that, expect refusal as in Dickson.

Bottom Line

Ontario judges aren’t rubber-stamping personal-injury settlements for parties under disability. They are applying a best-interests lens, demanding complete, candid records, and scrutinizing both the money flow and the fees. Align your materials with Rule 7.08/7.09, the SDA capacity framework, and the case law—Wu on the governing duty, Spicer on escrow structures and disclosure, Dickson on openness—and you’ll clear the approval threshold without drama. If you don’t, expect to be sent back to fix the record, or back to the bargaining table.