Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can an Ontario Court Approve a SABS Settlement Under Rule 7.08?
- Court / Tribunal
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 748 ↗
- Date
- October 21, 2026
- Area of law
- Motor Vehicle Accident
- Key issue
- Whether the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Rule 7.08 to approve a statutory accident benefits settlement, and whether a paralegal may lawfully negotiate that settlement before a lawyer swears the required affidavit.
- Outcome
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and approved the proposed $70,000 settlement itself, finding the Superior Court does have jurisdiction under Rule 7.08 and that a licensed paralegal could negotiate the resolution.
- Why it matters
- Accident victims who settle their statutory accident benefits claims through a paralegal need to know that those settlements can still receive court approval — a step that protects people who cannot fully protect their own legal interests.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
The Court of Appeal drew a clear line between two different things: a dispute about whether someone is entitled to accident benefits or how much they should receive (which falls under a specialized tribunal process), and the separate procedural step of asking a court to approve a settlement that has already been reached. Rule 7.08 approval exists to protect vulnerable parties — such as minors or people under disability — and the court confirmed that this protective function belongs to the Superior Court regardless of where the underlying benefit dispute would have been decided. On the paralegal question, the court looked at the Law Society of Ontario's By-Law 4 and confirmed that paralegals are permitted to negotiate statutory accident benefits resolutions in non-catastrophic impairment cases. A lawyer does not have to personally conduct the negotiation before swearing the affidavit required under Rule 7.08. The two roles — paralegal negotiator and lawyer affiant — can be filled by different professionals without offending professional responsibility rules.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that any accident benefits dispute can be taken to the Superior Court instead of the Licence Appeal Tribunal. The court was careful to say that the jurisdiction question turns on whether the parties are fighting over entitlement or quantum — those fights still belong to the tribunal process under the Insurance Act. Rule 7.08 approval is a narrow, protective step that happens after a settlement is already agreed upon, not a way to bypass the tribunal. The ruling also does not mean paralegals have unlimited authority over accident benefits files. The court noted that paralegals are prohibited from dealing with settlements of SABS claims for people who have been designated catastrophically impaired, and Mr. Borok had not been. Whoever negotiates the deal, the approval materials must still include an affidavit from a retained lawyer who has reviewed the file and gives an opinion on whether the settlement is in the person's best interests.
Can a Superior Court Approve a SABS Settlement in Ontario?
Yes. The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to approve a statutory accident benefits (SABS) settlement under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court in Borok v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 748 (CanLII) (full decision) drew a firm distinction between disputes about accident benefit entitlement, which go to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and the separate court approval process that protects a party under disability once a settlement is already in hand.
Abraham Borok was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 17, 2017. He is a party under disability, and his son acts as his litigation guardian. A licensed paralegal negotiated a $70,000 resolution of his accident benefits claims, and the insurer consented to court approval. The application judge nonetheless dismissed the approval application, holding on his own initiative that only the LAT could deal with SABS settlements. The insurer appealed, every party and intervener agreed the decision should be set aside, and the Court of Appeal approved the $70,000 settlement itself.
If you or a family member has settled an accident benefits claim and need to understand what court approval means, our Ontario motor vehicle accident lawyers can walk you through the process.
What Is Rule 7.08 and Why Does It Apply to Accident Benefits?
Rule 7.08 says no settlement of a claim involving a party under disability (which includes a minor) is binding without a judge’s approval. The approval process is a safeguard, not a dispute-resolution mechanism, and it comes from the court’s ancient parens patriae duty to protect people who cannot protect themselves. The Court of Appeal held that s. 280 of the Insurance Act gives the LAT exclusive jurisdiction only over disputes about entitlement to, or the amount of, accident benefits, not over settlements. It also pointed to s. 9.1 of the Automobile Insurance regulation, which expressly contemplates SABS settlements approved by a court under Rule 7.
Did the Application Judge Make a Procedural Error?
Yes, and the Court of Appeal found this to be a significant problem. The application judge dismissed the approval request on a jurisdictional ground that neither party had raised and on which neither party had been given a chance to make submissions. The Court of Appeal applied the principle from Saadati v. Moorhead that cases should not be decided on grounds not raised, and that each party is entitled to know and respond to the case it must answer. The parties first learned of the jurisdiction concern when the reasons came out, which the court called manifestly unfair. This procedural unfairness was in addition to the legal errors about s. 280 and Rule 7.
Can a Paralegal Negotiate a Statutory Accident Benefits Settlement?
In non-catastrophic impairment cases, yes. The Court of Appeal examined the Law Society of Ontario’s By-Law 4 and confirmed that paralegals are permitted to negotiate SABS resolutions in these cases. The application judge had insisted that the lawyer swearing the Rule 7.08 affidavit must also have negotiated the settlement. The Court of Appeal rejected that requirement. Rule 7 does not require a lawyer to take part in the negotiations; it requires an affidavit from the solicitor acting for the litigation guardian, who must review the circumstances, including liability and damages, and give a reasoned opinion on whether the settlement is in the best interests of the party under disability. Paralegals are, however, prohibited from dealing with SABS settlements for claimants designated catastrophically impaired.
If you are weighing an accident benefits settlement for a family member, our accident benefits lawyers can review the file and explain what the court will expect to see.
What Is the Difference Between a Tribunal Dispute and a Rule 7.08 Approval?
The distinction is straightforward: if you and your insurer disagree about whether you qualify for a benefit or how much you should receive, that fight goes to the Licence Appeal Tribunal under the Insurance Act’s dispute resolution process. Rule 7.08 approval is something different entirely — it is a court step that happens after both sides have already agreed on a number. The court is not re-opening the negotiation; it is checking that the settlement protects the person who may not be able to protect themselves. Confusing these two processes was at the heart of the error in this case.
Does This Decision Change How Insurers Handle SABS Settlements?
The ruling reinforces an approval process that was already established practice in Ontario; the court listed several Superior Court decisions approving SABS settlements for parties under disability under Rule 7. What the decision clarifies is that these applications cannot be turned away on the basis that the LAT has exclusive jurisdiction over SABS settlements.
Questions and Records to Discuss with a Lawyer
- Does the person receiving the settlement have a legal disability or other factor that would require court approval under Rule 7.08?
- Was the settlement negotiated by a paralegal, and does the file reflect that the paralegal’s involvement was within their permitted scope for the type of claim involved?
- Has the insurer raised any jurisdictional objection to court approval, and on what basis?
- Are there documents from the negotiation — correspondence, offers, benefit records — that a lawyer reviewing the affidavit would need to see?
- If a court has already refused approval, was the refusal based on a ground that was argued by both parties?
If you have questions about a statutory accident benefits settlement or the court approval process, reach out to UL Lawyers through /connect. We serve clients across Ontario, including those in Hamilton and the surrounding region, and we are happy to discuss the specifics of your situation.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Rule 7.08 requires a court to review and approve a settlement when one party — such as a minor or a person under disability — may not be able to fully protect their own interests. The court is not re-deciding the claim; it is confirming the deal is fair to the vulnerable party.
In non-catastrophic impairment cases, paralegals are permitted to negotiate statutory accident benefits resolutions under Law Society of Ontario rules. For more complex or catastrophic claims, you should confirm with a licensed professional what services fall within their permitted scope.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that dismissing an application on a ground neither party raised — without giving them a chance to respond — is a breach of procedural fairness. That kind of error can be the basis for an appeal of the dismissal.