A. Hussein

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff's claim alleged defamation, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intimidation arising from text messages and public misrepresentations by an immigration consultant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the statement of claim was confusing and poorly drafted, it contained the core of a legitimate complaint and did not exhibit the typical hallmarks of a Rule 2.1 case.

Following a four‑week jury trial arising from a motor vehicle collision caused by an impaired driver, the plaintiffs obtained a damages verdict of $220,000 but a much smaller net judgment after statutory deductions and accident benefits offsets.

Both parties sought costs, relying on competing Rule 49 settlement offers and arguments concerning proportionality and the impact of statutory deductibles.

The court held that statutory deductibles are not considered when determining entitlement to costs and rejected the defendant’s argument that its offers were more favourable.

After reviewing the complexity of the trial, expert evidence, motions, and proportionality considerations, the court fixed the plaintiffs’ costs at $250,000 in fees plus $126,598.48 in disbursements and applicable HST.

The court further concluded that recent amendments to the Insurance Act affecting cost calculations should not apply retroactively to this litigation.