Ayren James Brown

This is a costs endorsement for three inter-related appeals (C66633, C64430, and C64479).

The parties resolved costs for appeal C64479.

For appeals C64430 and C66633, the Court found that success was mixed, and therefore, there would be no order as to costs for those appeals.

This is an appeal from a jury trial in a personal injury case arising from a single-vehicle crash.

The plaintiffs (Tuffnail family) were injured, and liability was apportioned among the driver (Meekes), the host (Bolton), the bartender (Coulthard), and the plaintiff (Tuffnail).

Multiple parties appealed the post-verdict rulings.

The Court of Appeal found that Coulthard was "jointly liable" with Meekes for the purposes of OPCF 44R, allowing State Farm to deduct Coulthard's insurance limits, thereby reducing State Farm's payout to the Tuffnails.

The court clarified that State Farm must share subrogation recoveries with the Tuffnails on a pro rata basis until the Tuffnails receive full indemnification under the judgment, correcting the trial judge's order that limited it to the OPCF 44R endorsement.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision on Coulthard's several liability to Bolton, rejecting the argument for reapportionment of fault without Meekes.

The court found the trial judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest higher than the bank rate, reducing it to 1.3% as market rates did not justify a higher rate and the "expectation" factor was inappropriate.

Finally, the court upheld the denial of Coulthard's request to amend pleadings to add a limitation defence post-verdict due to non-compensable prejudice.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought housekeeping and income replacement benefits from her insurer.

The insurer disputed the housekeeping expenses, arguing they were not 'incurred' as the Applicant could not prove she spent the claimed amounts weekly.

The Arbitrator applied a broad interpretation of 'incurred' and awarded the housekeeping benefits.

The insurer also sought to deduct a lump sum long-term disability settlement the Applicant received after five years of litigation from her income replacement benefits.

The Arbitrator held that under section 7(1) of the Schedule, the insurer could not deduct the lump sum payment because the collateral benefits were not 'being received' periodically during the relevant time.

The Arbitrator also denied the insurer's request to deduct union dues from the calculation of net weekly income and awarded the Applicant interest on the overdue benefits.

The plaintiff fell from the flatbed of a pick-up truck operated by the defendant, a teammate, after a parade.

The plaintiff sued the driver and the hockey club.

The plaintiff's claim against the club was dismissed on consent.

The driver cross-claimed against the club for contribution and indemnity, alleging the club failed to ensure players were safely transported back to the arena.

The club moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claim.

The court found that even if a duty of care existed, there was no breach of the standard of care, as the plaintiff was an adult who voluntarily chose to walk instead of riding the club's float back.

The motion was granted and the cross-claim dismissed.