Alex Jeffrey Feldbloom

The defendants, having successfully defended a substantial damages claim at trial, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling $244,893.47.

The plaintiff disputed the quantum, arguing the fees were inflated, disbursements non-recoverable, and the amount exceeded reasonable expectations, proposing $100,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found the defendants' claim overinflated due to excessive hours, duplication of effort, time dedicated to training, and inadequate billing particulars.

The plaintiff's expectation of paying only $100,000 was deemed unreasonable given the trial's length and complexity.

The court fixed costs at $145,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding this amount fair and just in all circumstances.

The plaintiff brought a motion to exclude the defendant's testimony at trial or, alternatively, for a jury instruction regarding improper inferences.

The plaintiff raised concerns about photographs of vehicle damage and alleged racial bias in jury selection and defence strategy.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the defendant's testimony, finding it relevant to causation and damages.

However, the court excluded the vehicle photographs due to lack of probative value (cropped images).

The court also addressed the racial bias concerns, finding no evidentiary basis for exclusion of testimony on that ground, but affirmed the importance of jury instructions on cultural backgrounds and cautioned against prohibited reasoning regarding accident impact and injury severity.

Following a prior decision dismissing the action against an insurer defendant, the court addressed costs allocation among the parties.

The plaintiff had added the insurer as a defendant to ensure coverage but offered to release the insurer if other defendants admitted minimal liability.

The remaining defendants refused, and the insurer brought a successful summary judgment motion resulting in dismissal of the claim against it.

Exercising discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court apportioned costs between the plaintiff and the co-defendants, finding that both contributed to the insurer remaining in the action.

Costs of the action and the summary judgment motion were divided proportionally between them.

The insurer defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and all crossclaims against it arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The court reviewed discovery transcripts and the duties imposed by the Highway Traffic Act on drivers approaching and turning at an intersection.

Applying the summary judgment principles from Combined Air Mechanical Service Inc v. Flesch, the court concluded that the evidentiary record allowed a full determination without the need for trial.

The evidence established that the turning driver bore at least some responsibility for the collision, defeating the claim against the insurer.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action and crossclaims against the insurer with costs.