3 total
The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful plaintiffs in a fatal motor vehicle accident case pursuant to the Victims' Bill of Rights.
This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following a jury trial in a fatal motor vehicle accident case.
The court reviews the application of the Victims’ Bill of Rights, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, the effect of contingency fee agreements, and the impact of offers to settle.
Substantial indemnity costs are awarded throughout, reduced by 5% for contributory negligence, resulting in a total award of $490,368.86 to the plaintiffs.
The court ordered the plaintiff to produce a prior accident benefits file and pre-accident financial records but denied production of an insurance statement.
The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer an outstanding undertaking and four refused questions from discovery.
The court ordered the plaintiff to produce an accident benefits file from a prior accident, rejecting the plaintiff's argument that it was irrelevant.
The court also ordered the production of redacted bank records and accountant's files for three years pre-accident, finding them relevant to the plaintiff's income loss claim given inconsistencies in reported earnings.
However, the court refused to compel answers regarding a statement given by the plaintiff to their insurance company after the accident, applying the principle that such information could be obtained through direct questioning during discovery, similar to Sangaralingam v. Sinnathurai.
Costs were not awarded due to divided success.
The limitation period for an underinsured motorist claim begins the day after a valid demand for compensatory damages is made.
This appeal concerned the limitation period for an underinsured motorist claim.
The appellant insurer sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred, asserting that a demand for indemnification was made in April 2016.
The motion judge, relying on *Schmitz v. Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada*, found that the first valid demand for compensatory damages was made in February 2019, thus the limitation period began running in February 2019, making the action timely.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no basis to interfere with the factual findings or the application of *Schmitz*.
