Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule matters (SABS)

Following scheduling of a summary judgment motion over approximately $10,000 to $13,000 in income replacement benefits, the plaintiff withdrew the motion after producing information and the insurer agreed to pay the benefits sought, subject to a possible dispute over retroactive quantum.

Both sides sought costs.

The court held that both parties were responsible for disproportionate and inefficient motion practice, with the plaintiff slow to disclose relevant corporate structure information and the insurer demanding excessive production inconsistent with proportionality.

Emphasizing the required culture shift toward cooperative, proportionate litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either side.

This was a costs decision following a summary judgment motion by the defendant insurer asserting the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred and a successful cross-motion by the plaintiffs to amend their pleading.

The court had previously granted the cross-motion, dismissed the insurer's summary judgment motion, and declared the action timely.

On costs, the insurer argued the issue was novel and that no costs should be awarded, or alternatively that costs should be capped at $3,500.

The court held that costs were appropriate and fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $7,000 all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis.

This costs endorsement followed the abandonment of three scheduled motions in an accident benefits and tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a minor plaintiff.

The insurer had moved for summary judgment dismissing aggravated and punitive damages claims, while the plaintiff had cross-moved for a declaration that the Minor Injury Guidelines did not apply and had also proposed an amendment to plead bad faith damages.

After the insurer delivered an OCF 9 confirming the claim fell outside the Minor Injury Guidelines and the plaintiff narrowed or abandoned his other positions, the motions became unnecessary.

The court held both sides had engaged in tactical gamesmanship that caused needless motion practice, and ordered costs in the cause rather than awarding costs to either side on the abandoned motions.

This was a costs decision following the defendant's successful summary judgment motion in a statutory accident benefits action.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were warranted because the plaintiff delayed for years in making the accident benefits claim and made unsupported allegations of dishonesty against the insurer.

The defendant's bill of costs was found to be modest.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the accident benefits claim on the basis that the claimant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines under the statutory accident benefits regime.

The court held that the responding party failed to put forward admissible evidence showing chronic pain, psychological impairment, or any injury taking the claim outside predominantly minor sprains and strains.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the record was sufficient for final disposition.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the insurer, with costs fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a successful jurisdiction motion, the moving defendant sought substantial costs of the Ontario proceeding.

The responding plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the motion raised novel post-Van Breda jurisdiction issues intertwined with uninsured and underinsured automobile coverage provisions.

The court accepted that submission, finding the motion was reasonably brought and reasonably resisted and that the novelty and complexity of the issues made it fair for each party to bear their own costs.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant, a victim of a motor vehicle accident, had her statutory accident benefits terminated by the respondent insurer.

The insurer's notice of termination advised her of the right to seek mediation but did not outline the full dispute resolution process or the relevant limitation periods.

After unsuccessful mediation, the appellant filed an action more than two years after the termination.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act does not begin to run until the insurer provides a valid refusal, which requires adequate compliance with s. 71 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Because the insurer failed to inform the appellant of the complete dispute resolution process, including the right to arbitrate or litigate and the applicable time limits, a proper refusal was not given, and the limitation period was not triggered.

The appeal was allowed.