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.

The appellant appealed an arbitration order dismissing his claim for accident benefits and ordering him to pay expenses and an assessment.

The appellant's non-lawyer representative advanced extensive arguments alleging institutional and personal bias against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and its arbitrators.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and concluding that the bias allegations were completely without foundation.

The Director ordered the appellant to pay $1,500 in appeal expenses and a $500 assessment, finding the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant's representative brought preliminary motions alleging institutional bias against FSCO, requesting an adjournment pending an appeal in another case, and seeking the appointment of a private arbitrator.

The arbitrator dismissed the preliminary motions, finding no evidence of bias and no authority to appoint a private arbitrator.

The applicant's representative then alleged personal bias against the arbitrator and refused to proceed with the hearing on the merits.

The arbitrator dismissed the substantive claims for want of evidence and ordered the applicant to pay $1,000 towards the insurer's expenses and assessment fee due to the representative's disruptive and unfounded conduct.