Antonella Albano

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff agreed that the partial indemnity costs sought by two defendants were reasonable, but objected to the third defendant's request for full indemnity costs.

The court found no reason to award full indemnity costs as the plaintiff had done nothing improper, and awarded partial indemnity costs to all three defendants.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, supported by the co-defendants.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in the defendant's ride-share vehicle.

Relying on GPS data, engineering reports, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical history and statements, the court found the plaintiff's claim lacked credibility.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the alleged accident never occurred and dismissed the action.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a medical negligence claim.

The plaintiffs, who were unsuccessful at trial, argued against a costs award due to their elderly age, poor health, and lack of assets.

The defendants, Bolton Medical Imaging Centres and Dr. K. Schneider, sought partial indemnity costs.

The court affirmed the general rule that costs follow the event, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this principle.

While acknowledging the plaintiffs' right to pursue the action, the court held they must bear the adverse costs consequences.

The court fixed the defendants' costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amounts claimed by both defendants due to excessive hours for certain steps, particularly for Dr. Schneider's counsel.

The plaintiff sued an imaging clinic and a radiologist for medical negligence, alleging a failure to diagnose breast cancer from mammograms and ultrasounds conducted in 2008 and 2009.

The court found no evidence that the clinic's imaging fell below the standard of care, noting that the plaintiff's dense breast tissue made imaging difficult but diagnostic.

The court also dismissed the claim against the radiologist, finding that his interpretation of the imaging was a reasonable exercise of clinical judgment and that he could not be judged retrospectively with the benefit of hindsight.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought legal expenses following a successful arbitration regarding his employment status for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to expenses but reduced the claimed hours by excluding time spent preparing for and attending mediation, as mediation expenses are not recoverable under the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator also declined to depart from the maximum allowable Legal Aid rate, finding the arbitration straightforward.

The applicant was awarded $4,378.11 plus applicable taxes.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for income replacement benefits.

The insurer paid benefits at a lower rate, arguing the applicant was self-employed at the time of the accident.

The applicant argued he was an employee, having recently accepted a job at a new auto body shop for a fixed weekly salary.

The arbitrator found that the applicant met the definition of an employee under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, noting that he had no ownership interest, bore no financial risk, and worked set hours for a fixed wage.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits at the higher employee rate of $294.12 per week, plus interest on overdue payments.