Catherine Temple

The Township of Greater Madawaska brought a motion to bifurcate the trial, seeking to separate the determination of an easement from the remaining issues, or alternatively, to separate liability from damages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that bifurcation would not save time or costs, would prejudice the property owners, and that the issues were not clearly severable, particularly regarding punitive damages.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the property owners.

The court considered interim costs submissions following the first stage of a bifurcated trial, which had dismissed the plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief.

The plaintiff argued that a costs award at this stage was premature, citing precedents that costs are typically awarded at the conclusion of the second stage of bifurcated proceedings.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that a full appreciation of overall success and all relevant Rule 57 considerations, including Rule 49 offers, could only be made after the entire trial.

Consequently, the determination of costs was deferred to the completion of the proceedings.

The plaintiff property owner sought declarations that her building was originally constructed as two semi-detached units or, alternatively, that she was entitled to four residential units based on a legal non-conforming use.

The municipality had placed a stop-work order on her renovations.

Relying on expert architectural and engineering evidence, the court found the building was originally constructed in 1906 as a single-family dwelling with internal access between areas.

The court also found no evidence that the building ever contained four residential units prior to the 1977 zoning by-laws.

The requested declarations were dismissed.

The Children's Lawyer appealed two orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the Children's Lawyer lacked standing to bring the appeal as she had only appeared on the motion below to request an adjournment and did not seek to be appointed Litigation Guardian or intervene as a party.

The actual Litigation Guardian did not appeal the orders.

The deceased was killed in a motor vehicle accident.

At the time, she was separated from her husband but not divorced, and they had executed a separation agreement releasing all claims.

Her dependent daughters claimed a supplementary death benefit under the SABS, which the insurer denied on the basis that the separated husband remained a 'spouse' entitled to the primary benefit.

The arbitrator awarded the benefit to the daughters and ordered a special award against the insurer.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate confirmed the death benefit award, finding the separation agreement precluded the husband's claim, but revoked the special award because the insurer's position was based on a reasonable interpretation of a novel legal issue.

The applicants sought a determination of expenses, interest, and a special award following a successful claim for statutory accident benefits (death benefits) against the insurer.

The arbitrator fixed the interest owing at $14,173.50 and the special award at $39,173.50 as of April 10, 2006.

The arbitrator held that statutory interest under section 46 of the Schedule continues to accrue post-arbitration until paid, as it is a contractual right rather than post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicants were also awarded $9,628.43 in expenses, with the arbitrator approving their counsel's hourly rate of $150 due to his experience and success in obtaining a maximum special award.

The applicants, dependent daughters of the deceased, claimed the full death benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer paid a portion to the deceased's separated spouse, despite a separation agreement releasing all spousal claims.

The arbitrator found that the separated spouse had waived his right to the benefit, entitling the daughters to the remaining amount.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay a maximum 50% special award, finding that the insurer acted unreasonably and in bad faith by ignoring binding case law and failing to properly investigate the claim.