Borok v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 748

Written by Jessica Golosky / Case Summaries / October 30, 2026

Court of Appeal Confirms Superior Court Jurisdiction to Approve SABS Settlements for Persons Under Disability

Full Decision

In Borok v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 748, the Court of Appeal for Ontario unanimously reaffirmed that settlements of Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claims involving persons under disability remain subject to court approval under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also confirmed that licensed paralegals may negotiate non-catastrophic SABS settlements and found that the application judge’s handling of the approval application was procedurally unfair.

Background

The case arose from a proposed settlement of an injured claimant’s SABS claim. The claimant, Abraham Borok, was a person under disability and his son acted as his litigation guardian. A licensed paralegal negotiated a settlement with the insurer in the amount of $70,000. The paralegal retained a lawyer to handle the rule 7 application for approval of the accident benefits settlement.

Although the settlement was supported by both parties and approval was sought on consent, the application judge dismissed the application. The judge concluded that because the settlement involved SABS benefits, the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), leaving the Superior Court without jurisdiction to approve the settlement. The judge also expressed concerns that the lawyer providing the affidavit for the court approval application had not participated in negotiating the settlement.

The insurer appealed. The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) was granted leave to intervene in the appeal. The respondent, OTLA, Canadian Defence Lawyers and the Public Guardian and Trustee all agreed that the decision of the application judge should be set aside.

OTLA was granted leave to intervene to address the broader legal and public-interest implications of the application judge’s decision, including its impact on persons under disability and the long-standing practice of seeking court approval of SABS settlements under Rule 7. Oral submissions on behalf of OTLA were delivered by Jessica Golosky of Gluckstein Lawyers.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and, rather than remitting the matter for a new hearing, exercised its authority under s. 134(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act to approve the settlement itself.

The central issue was whether section 280 of the Insurance Act removed the Superior Court’s jurisdiction to approve settlements involving SABS claims for persons under disability.

The court held that it did not. Section 280 grants the LAT exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning entitlement to SABS benefits and the amount of those benefits. It does not address settlement approval under Rule 7.08.

The court emphasized that if the legislature intends to remove the Superior Court’s jurisdiction, it must do so in clear and unequivocal language. Nothing in section 280 expressly removes the court’s long-standing jurisdiction to review and approve settlements involving persons under disability.

Importantly, the court pointed to section 9.1(6) of O. Reg. 664, which expressly contemplates settlements approved by a court pursuant to Rule 7. The court held that the regulation assumes the continuing availability of court approval in the SABS context and is inconsistent with the proposition that the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to approve such settlements. Notably, this statutory interpretation argument formed a central part of OTLA’s oral submissions on appeal and was reflected in the court’s reasoning.

The court also noted the practical difficulty created by the application judge’s interpretation. Persons under disability cannot enter into binding settlements without court approval. If the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to approve SABS settlements and the LAT had no equivalent approval process, vulnerable claimants would be left without a practical mechanism to obtain approval of settlements that are otherwise required by law to be approved. The court’s interpretation avoids that result.

The court confirmed that licensed paralegals are permitted to handle SABS claims, subject to the limits imposed by the Law Society’s regulatory framework. While paralegals cannot handle settlements involving catastrophically impaired claimants, the claimant in this case had not been designated catastrophically impaired. Accordingly, there was no prohibition on a paralegal negotiating the settlement.

The court nevertheless stressed the continuing importance of the solicitor’s affidavit. The lawyer retained for the approval application must independently assess the proposed settlement, review the relevant circumstances and supporting materials, determine whether the settlement is in the best interests of the person under disability and explain the basis for that opinion. The affidavit is not intended to be a mere formality; rather, it assists the court in carrying out its protective function under Rule 7.

Finally, the court found that the application judge acted unfairly by deciding the application on a jurisdictional basis that had not been raised with the parties. Upon receipt of the Rule 7 application, the application judge convened a hearing to address concerns regarding the role of the paralegal and the solicitor’s affidavit. The issue of the Superior Court’s jurisdiction over SABS settlements was not raised during the hearing. The court held that the parties were entitled to notice and an opportunity to make submissions before the application could be dismissed on that basis.

The court described the process as “manifestly unfair,” particularly because counsel had followed the established Rule 7 approval procedure and applicable practice directions.

Why the Decision Matters for Plaintiff Counsel

Borok provides important clarification for practitioners handling accident benefits claims involving minors and persons under disability.

The decision confirms:

  • Rule 7.08 continues to apply to settlements of SABS claims involving persons under disability;
  • The LAT’s exclusive jurisdiction over SABS disputes does not extend to judicial approval of settlements under Rule 7.08;
  • Licensed paralegals may negotiate non-catastrophic SABS settlements;
  • The Superior Court’s parens patriae role remains central to the protection of vulnerable litigants; and
  • Courts must provide parties with notice and an opportunity to respond before deciding a case on a ground not raised by the parties.

OTLA Intervention

Congratulations to the OTLA team, including Past President Steve Rastin, Past Board Members Alex Voudouris and Stanley Pasternak and Interventions Committee member Jessica Golosky, on OTLA’s intervention in Borok v. Primmum Insurance Company before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Written by

Jessica joined Gluckstein Lawyers as an articling student in 2017 and is a graduate of the J.D. program from the Faculty of Law at Western University. She graduated on the Dean’s Honour List and was awarded the Law Society of Ontario Prize for academic excellence.

As a law student, Jessica worked as a Research Student for Professor Richard H. McLaren and contributed to various corporate and commercial publications. Throughout her time in law school, she was actively involved in the Western Journal of Legal Studies as both a Managing Editor and Senior Editor and volunteered as an Associate Caseworker with the Family Law Team at Western’s Community Legal Services clinic. She also participated in an exchange program during her final year of law school at Stockholm University.

Prior to law school, Jessica graduated from the University of Toronto with an Honours Bachelor of Science degree with High Distinction in the areas of Psychology, Sociology, and Urban Studies.