B.A. Percival

The appellants brought a motion seeking an order to carry the Court of Appeal's order of September 19, 2017 into operation.

The Court of Appeal determined that the motion could not properly be characterized as an order under Rule 59.06(1)(c).

The dispute underlying the motion arose from the terms of the Minutes of Settlement and involved a question of contractual interpretation, which the Court found was properly resolved through a proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice rather than through the appellate motion process.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following a four-week trial where the plaintiff was awarded over $7 million for a traumatic brain injury sustained after jumping from a moving school bus, the court determined the costs payable by the defendant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the plaintiffs' offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court adjusted the 2005 Costs Grid for inflation to determine appropriate hourly rates for counsel.

In assessing disbursements, the court reduced several expert witness fees because the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient information regarding the experts' hourly rates and time spent.

The court also disallowed the premium for adverse costs insurance, finding it was not a compensable disbursement as it did not advance the litigation.

Total costs of $741,266.08 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking court approval of a settlement in a personal injury action involving a minor plaintiff arising from a motor vehicle collision.

The settlement resolved claims against several municipal defendants responsible for roadway maintenance and resulted in dismissal of the action, including related third party claims.

Third parties opposed the settlement on the basis that they wished the municipality to remain in the litigation, but the court held they had previously chosen not to advance a third party claim and had provided no sufficient basis to reject the settlement.

After reviewing the supporting materials and affidavits, the court concluded the settlement was reasonable and in the best interests of the minor plaintiff.

The settlement was therefore approved and the action dismissed as against the settling parties.

Following a lengthy condominium dispute trial involving claims of solicitor negligence, construction defects, and condominium governance issues, the court addressed the allocation of costs among multiple parties.

The plaintiff succeeded against the solicitor defendant but failed against several other defendants, including the condominium corporation and property management company.

Applying the principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed reasonable expectations, proportionality, litigation conduct, and Rule 49 settlement offers.

The court issued a Sanderson order requiring the negligent solicitor defendant to pay the costs of the successful condominium defendant, while also apportioning part of the successful property manager’s costs between the plaintiff and the solicitor defendant.

Substantial costs awards were fixed reflecting the complexity and length of the litigation.