Carmen Mihaela Baru

This costs decision follows the trial judgment in a motor vehicle insurance dispute.

The court addresses the adjustment of the judgment for a Pierringer Agreement, calculation of prejudgment interest, and the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court finds that the net damages to be paid by Economical are $13,008.86, with prejudgment interest of $1,292.14, and costs awarded on the Small Claims Court scale, totaling $7,909.26.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 49 offers, proportionality, and the policy behind limiting costs where the claim could have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Ercan Balpinar, brought an insurance claim against Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Highland Auto Body regarding inadequate repairs to a cargo van.

The vehicle was damaged in an accident, and Economical elected to repair it.

The plaintiff alleged the repairs were insufficient, particularly concerning frame damage, and sought further compensation, including for storage and a replacement vehicle, and punitive damages.

The court found that the initial repairs were inadequate and that a problem with the right front wheel, indicative of frame/suspension issues, was only corrected after a frame replacement years later.

The court awarded the plaintiff the cost of the frame replacement and towing charges, and limited storage and rental vehicle costs, but denied punitive damages, finding no bad faith on Economical's part.

The court emphasized the insurer's responsibility to ensure competent repairs when electing to repair a vehicle.

The moving party sought to quash an appeal and dismiss a related motion for leave to appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, applying principles from *Iris Technologies Inc. v. Rogers Communications Canada Inc.*, which held that under s. 17(9) of the *Arbitration Act, 1991*, there is no further right of appeal from a Superior Court judge's decision reviewing an arbitrator's preliminary jurisdictional ruling.

The Superior Court had overturned an arbitrator's decision regarding the validity of a lease and its arbitration clause.

Consequently, both the appeal and the motion for leave to appeal were quashed.

The applicant successfully challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling on jurisdiction, with the court declaring an alleged lease invalid due to a forged signature.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the court application and the jurisdiction motion before the arbitrator.

The court found that the respondents engaged in reprehensible conduct, including submitting falsified evidence, altering documents, and making bad faith allegations.

Consequently, the court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $342,230.24.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hooper J. dated December 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $4,132.41.

The applicant challenged an arbitrator's preliminary ruling that an arbitration clause in an alleged lease agreement was valid.

The applicant claimed his signature on the lease was forged.

The court determined that under s. 17(8) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, the application was a hearing de novo.

After assessing lay and expert evidence, including handwriting and ink dating experts, the court found the respondents failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant signed the lease.

The court declared the lease and its arbitration clause invalid and set aside the arbitrator's ruling.

The applicants and respondent brought cross-motions for refusals arising from cross-examinations in an application to evict the respondent from his parents' former home.

The applicants brought the application as trustees of an alter ego trust.

The court ordered the applicants to produce the trust's deed of settlement as it was foundational to their standing, but declined to order production of the mother's will or medical records.

The respondent was ordered to produce his ODSP statements, tax returns, and available receipts to support his claim of financial dependence.

The applicant and respondents, who are brothers, are involved in a dispute over the management of their mother's property and competing powers of attorney.

A fourth brother, who is not a party to the application, brought a motion for intervenor status and interim financial assistance, arguing he relied on his mother for financial support and housing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed intervenor had no legal interest in the subject matter of the application, would not be adversely affected by its outcome, and shared no common questions of law or fact.

Furthermore, adding him as a party two weeks before the scheduled hearing would cause undue delay and prejudice.

The request for interim financial assistance was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the proposed intervenor but deferred against his potential inheritance.

The applicant creditors sought to continue an application for a bankruptcy order against the debtor, The Quiet Voice Productions Inc., after abandoning a partially argued motion.

The debtor had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal.

The court declined to hear the bankruptcy application immediately due to time limitations and the applicants' failure to allow previously ordered cross-examinations on affidavits.

The court issued orders to manage the proceedings, including directions for the proposal vote, future hearings for the bankruptcy application or proposal approval, and completion of cross-examinations, while also freezing the debtor's funds.