A. Eckart

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff recovered only $2,000 after the application of the statutory deductible and a successful defence threshold motion.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $230,000, while the defendants argued they were the successful party and sought $25,000 in costs.

The court found that the plaintiff achieved some success and was entitled to costs, noting the defendants' failure to make any settlement offers and their conduct which unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

During a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(15) of the Insurance Act seeking a determination that the plaintiff had not sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The court reviewed the statutory test and the regulatory criteria under the Ontario Regulations, including the requirements of substantial interference, importance of function, and permanence.

Based on extensive medical evidence diagnosing chronic pain syndrome, orthopedic injuries, and psychiatric conditions including major depressive disorder and somatic symptom disorder, the court found the impairments substantially interfered with employment and daily living.

The court accepted the evidence of multiple treating and expert physicians and rejected the defence medical expert’s opinion as unreliable.

The court concluded the plaintiff met the statutory threshold and was not barred from recovering damages for non‑pecuniary losses.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant, Toronto Hydro, to answer questions refused at discovery and to produce documents regarding its investigations into a transformer explosion.

Toronto Hydro claimed litigation privilege over the investigations, arguing they were conducted in anticipation of litigation.

The Master granted the motion, finding that Toronto Hydro failed to establish that the information came from experts or that the dominant purpose of the investigations was litigation.

Furthermore, Toronto Hydro failed to provide the required undertaking under Rule 31.06(3) not to call the experts at trial, thereby mandating disclosure of their findings and opinions.