Brian Sunohara

The defendant Maryvale brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action due to his failure to pay two costs awards totaling $51,500 arising from a successful appeal and a dismissed leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction under Rules 57.03 and 60.12 as the costs orders did not arise from a contested motion or interlocutory order.

The court found that even if it had jurisdiction, dismissing the action would not be just, as the Court of Appeal had ordered a new trial without making costs payment a precondition, the costs were not sanctions for bad behaviour, the plaintiff's claim was not devoid of merit, and the plaintiff was impecunious.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a claim for contribution and indemnity under the Environmental Protection Act, following an Environmental Review Tribunal decision reducing a municipal cleanup order against him.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments were statute-barred and untenable.

The court granted leave to amend, finding that the legal issues regarding limitation periods and statutory interpretation were novel and not plainly and obviously untenable, and that the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.

Following a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted, the plaintiffs recovered modest damages far below the amounts claimed.

The plaintiffs sought over $422,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendants argued the claim was disproportionate and relied on prior settlement offers.

The court analyzed proportionality, conduct of the litigation, trial duration, settlement efforts, and Rule 57.01 cost factors.

Although the defendants’ offers did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10, they were considered relevant under Rule 49.13.

Balancing the disproportionate costs sought, litigation conduct, settlement history, and the plaintiffs’ financial circumstances, the court declined to award costs to either side.

Following a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded modest damages, implicitly rejecting much of the plaintiffs' evidence on causation and credibility.

However, the trial judge conducted an independent assessment and found the principal plaintiff to be credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from chronic low back pain caused by the accident, which constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the statutory threshold.