Ainsley Shannon

This costs decision follows the trial judgment in a motor vehicle insurance dispute.

The court addresses the adjustment of the judgment for a Pierringer Agreement, calculation of prejudgment interest, and the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court finds that the net damages to be paid by Economical are $13,008.86, with prejudgment interest of $1,292.14, and costs awarded on the Small Claims Court scale, totaling $7,909.26.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 49 offers, proportionality, and the policy behind limiting costs where the claim could have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Ercan Balpinar, brought an insurance claim against Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Highland Auto Body regarding inadequate repairs to a cargo van.

The vehicle was damaged in an accident, and Economical elected to repair it.

The plaintiff alleged the repairs were insufficient, particularly concerning frame damage, and sought further compensation, including for storage and a replacement vehicle, and punitive damages.

The court found that the initial repairs were inadequate and that a problem with the right front wheel, indicative of frame/suspension issues, was only corrected after a frame replacement years later.

The court awarded the plaintiff the cost of the frame replacement and towing charges, and limited storage and rental vehicle costs, but denied punitive damages, finding no bad faith on Economical's part.

The court emphasized the insurer's responsibility to ensure competent repairs when electing to repair a vehicle.

The plaintiff brought an occupier's liability action against the Crown for injuries sustained after falling at a provincial park.

The trial proceeded on the issue of liability.

The court dismissed the action, finding the claim statute-barred due to the plaintiff's failure to provide notice within 10 days as required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove she tripped on a hidden retaining wall as alleged, concluding instead that she slipped.

The court also determined that the Crown, as occupier, had acted reasonably and was not liable for an obvious risk or for injuries resulting from the plaintiff's misuse of the premises.