Benjamin J. Flanagan

The defendant to the counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff by counterclaim following an apartment fire.

The moving party relied on unpaid costs from a previous motion and argued the counterclaim was frivolous and vexatious.

The court found the moving party met its initial burden under Rules 56.01(1)(c) and (e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The responding party failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or that the counterclaim had a good chance of success.

The court ordered the responding party to post $14,000 in security for costs, payable in tranches.

The self-represented defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff failed to set the action down for trial within six months of the close of pleadings.

The court found that the delay was neither intentional nor contumelious, but rather resulted from disputes over a discovery plan and competing motions.

Concluding that the delay was not inordinate or inexcusable and that there was no substantial risk to a fair trial, the court dismissed the motion and awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision that he was not involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer had denied benefits based on expert evidence from an Electronic Data Recorder suggesting the collision was staged.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator erred in law.

Even if the appellant intentionally accelerated into the other vehicle, he was still driving the car, which meets the ordinary and well-known use test for an 'accident'.

The issue of wilful misrepresentation remained to be decided.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After her legal representative was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the relationship and inability to communicate, the applicant failed to participate in the proceedings.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application and for expenses.

The arbitrator found the application had become frivolous and vexatious due to the applicant's lack of cooperation and dismissed the application under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer was awarded expenses of $1,761.56 based on Legal Aid rates.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed both statutory accident benefits and tort damages.

The insurer, which insured both the plaintiff and the defendant, denied coverage alleging a staged accident.

The insurer retained the same law firm to defend it in the accident benefits arbitration and to defend the tort action, providing the law firm with the plaintiff's confidential accident benefits file without consent.

The plaintiff successfully moved to remove the law firm as solicitor of record due to a conflict of interest.

The insurer appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an insurer owes a duty of good faith and must maintain a privacy 'firewall' between its accident benefits and tort departments.

Retaining the same counsel and sharing confidential information without consent created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion to remove the insurer's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, which was dismissed.

The insurer sought its expenses of $3,378.99 for the motion.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was not entirely successful, as its request to stay the motion was denied, warranting a 20% reduction.

The arbitrator further reduced the insurer's costs by 40% because the applicant's motion was not unnecessary given conflicting court decisions, the issue was of public interest, and the applicant was impecunious.

The insurer was awarded $1,297.38 in expenses, payable at the conclusion of the hearing on the merits.