Almeda Wallbridge

The decision addresses the allocation of costs following a motion regarding the fairness and reasonableness of a contingency fee agreement in a personal injury settlement involving a minor.

The court awards full indemnity costs for guardianship proceedings and partial/substantial indemnity costs for the fees motion, analyzing the appropriateness of the costs claimed and the conduct of the parties.

This addendum addresses the issue of costs following a prior motion where the defendants sought a second medical examination of the plaintiff.

The court had found the motion necessary but ruled against the defendants' preferred assessor, instead ordering an assessment by an alternative proposed by the plaintiffs.

Considering the divided success on the motion, the court determined that both parties should bear their own costs, finding that their respective successes reasonably equated each other.

The plaintiff sustained injuries in a motor vehicle collision with a train and commenced two separate actions.

She brought a motion to consolidate the two actions.

The defendant municipality and a third party opposed consolidation, arguing it would cause prejudice by exposing them to new crossclaims and affecting a limitation period defence.

The court declined to consolidate the actions due to the potential prejudice, but ordered that the two actions be tried together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought materials seeking court approval of an infant settlement arising from civil litigation involving multiple defendants and a hospital.

The court invited submissions regarding the characterization of future care payments to the parents, whether settlement materials should be sealed, and whether the solicitor’s affidavit should be sealed and service waived.

The court held that the possible taxation of future care payments is a matter for the Canada Revenue Agency and not determinative for the approval motion.

Applying the open court principle and exercising parens patria jurisdiction, the court declined to grant a sealing order over the settlement documents.

However, the court permitted plaintiffs’ counsel to refile a substitute affidavit after service on opposing counsel.