Chad Townsend

The applicant, TTC Insurance Company Limited (TTCICL), sought an order extending the time to commence their appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and an order joining this appeal with an existing application for judicial review.

Concurrently, the LAT and the Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to intervene in the appeal.

The court granted both motions, finding that the extension of time was justified given the recent Supreme Court decision in Yatar, the short delay, lack of prejudice to the respondent, and the overall interests of justice.

Intervenor status was granted to LAT and the Attorney General, with LAT's submissions restricted to procedural and jurisdictional issues, not the merits of its decision.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a jury verdict and costs endorsement in a personal injury action.

The appellants (defendants) challenged the admissibility of a SPECT scan, the exclusion of attendant care forms for credibility, and jury instructions on causation and damages.

They also appealed the trial judge's refusal to deduct non-earner benefits from the tort award and the costs award.

The Court dismissed the appeals regarding the SPECT scan, attendant care forms, and jury instructions.

However, it allowed the appeal in part, ruling that non-earner benefits are deductible from the past income loss award, clarifying the "silo" approach under the Insurance Act.

The appeal on costs was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs for the appeal.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action for injuries from an automobile accident, with liability admitted by the defendants.

The trial proceeded on damages only before a jury.

The court addressed a dispute between counsel regarding the wording of jury questions.

The defendants proposed questions that included a causation question despite admitted liability, and sought to particularize damages by apportioning them between the initial accident and subsequent accidents.

The court rejected the defendants' proposed questions, finding them to contain embedded assumptions, to be overly complicated, and to risk confusion.

The court affirmed that admitted liability includes causation, making a separate causation question unnecessary.

It also reiterated principles against apportionment between tortious and non-tortious causes for indivisible injuries, and the general rule against requiring juries to provide reasons or particularize findings, especially for damages assessment.

The plaintiff's simpler, general damages questions were adopted.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully appealing a Master's order and denying leave to appeal a costs decision.

The court denied substantial indemnity, finding the plaintiff's offer to settle did not trigger Rule 49.10 consequences due to minimal compromise and timing.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $26,500, finding the plaintiff's counsel hours and rates reasonable given the complexity and volume of the appeal, and noting the defendants' costs outline was not credible.

The defendants appealed an Associate Judge's order regarding discovery issues and a subsequent costs decision.

The underlying motion dealt with time limits for further examinations for discovery, refusals, and undertakings in an action involving allegations of malicious prosecution and bad faith.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's application of Rule 31.05.1 to extend discovery time limits or in ordering the defendants to reattend at their own expense due to improper refusals.

Leave to appeal the $100,000 partial indemnity costs award was also denied, as the defendants failed to demonstrate an error in principle or that the costs decision was plainly wrong.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion regarding 166 undertakings and refusals from the defendants' discoveries.

The plaintiff claimed $228,395.58 on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the defendants' conduct, including delayed disclosure and excessive refusals.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not rise to the level of scandalous or reprehensible behavior.

Applying the principle of what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $100,000, payable jointly by the TTC Defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion to resolve numerous undertakings and refusals from the discoveries of the defendants, and to seek leave to extend the time limits for further discoveries.

The court ruled on dozens of specific refusals and undertakings, ordering the defendants to answer the majority of them.

Applying the factors under Rule 31.05.1(2), the court granted the plaintiff an additional 26 hours to discover the defendants, noting the complexity of the case, the financial imbalance between the parties, and the defendants' conduct during initial discoveries.

The court also ordered three of the defendants to reattend at their own expense pursuant to Rule 34.15(1)(a) due to the large volume of improper refusals.

The Court of Appeal considered when the limitation period for a claim against an unidentified motorist insurer (under s. 265 of the Insurance Act) begins to run, specifically under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge and Divisional Court held that the limitation period does not begin until the insured makes an indemnification claim that the insurer fails to satisfy.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this, holding that a claim against the insurer is "discovered" under s. 5(1)(a)(iii) of the Limitations Act only when the insured knows or ought to know that the insurer's act or omission (failure to indemnify) caused their loss.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the plaintiff's claim against TTC Insurance was not statute-barred.

The plaintiff was allegedly injured in a bus accident involving an unidentified motorist.

She sought to amend her statement of claim to add TTC Insurance Company Limited (TTCICL) as a defendant for unidentified motorist coverage under s. 265 of the Insurance Act.

TTCICL argued the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the limitation period for a claim against an insurer for unidentified motorist coverage begins to run on the day after the plaintiff makes an indemnification demand which the insurer fails to satisfy.

As the plaintiff brought her motion to add TTCICL as a defendant before making such a demand that TTCICL failed to satisfy, the limitation period had not expired.

The motion to amend was granted.

Following a 13-day trial where a jury found the defendant transit commission not negligent for the plaintiff's slip and fall, the defendant sought costs.

The self-represented plaintiff argued she was impecunious and should not pay costs.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct unreasonable, noting she rejected multiple settlement offers and made unfounded allegations of evidence tampering.

Applying the principle that impecuniosity does not shield a party who acts unreasonably, the court awarded the defendant $125,491.71 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's fabricated claims and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not permit substantial indemnity costs for a successful defendant, and the plaintiff's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required to justify elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $193,043.98.

The plaintiff brought two negligence actions: one against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and its driver for a bus door incident, and another against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

The court dismissed both actions, finding no negligence on the part of the defendants and significant credibility issues with the plaintiff regarding his injuries, pain, and efforts to return to work.

The court also found that the plaintiff's alleged psychological injuries were not causally linked to the TTC accident or were too remote.

In a pedestrian–streetcar collision action, a transit authority brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim against its municipal co‑defendant.

The moving party argued that it would assume responsibility for maintenance of trees on a median that allegedly obstructed the streetcar operator’s view and relied on statutory provisions of the City of Toronto Act.

The court held that the summary judgment rules could permit a defendant to seek dismissal of a claim against a co‑defendant, but the evidentiary record revealed genuine issues requiring a trial regarding responsibility for the median and trees.

Ownership of the land remained with the municipality and the statutory provision did not bar claims where the property was not the transit authority’s.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Following a trial where the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was found not liable for a streetcar accident involving a four-year-old child, the TTC sought its costs of the proceeding.

The court declined to award costs to the TTC, noting that the child could not be at fault and that the TTC, as a public service, should bear the costs of defending such claims where the injured party is not at fault.

The court also declined to award costs for the TTC's counterclaim against the child's parents, resulting in no order as to costs for any party.

A motion was brought to strike a third party claim against the Toronto Transit Commission’s insurer arising from a pedestrian injury caused by an uninsured vehicle while the pedestrian attempted to board a stopped streetcar.

The moving party argued there was no privity of contract with the injured person or the defendant and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court held that potential liability could arise under the statutory accident benefits priority scheme in s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act if the streetcar was "involved in the incident." Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found the allegations could support such involvement and therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The third party claim was permitted to proceed and declaratory relief within the action was found appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

Following a jury verdict finding that a motor vehicle accident did not cause injury to the plaintiff, and dismissal of the action on the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct and a withdrawn Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because the plaintiffs’ conduct was not reprehensible and the defendants’ offer had been withdrawn prior to trial, removing automatic Rule 49 consequences.

However, the defendants were the successful parties and were entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout, with the court fixing a lump sum award after considering proportionality, trial complexity, and counsel conduct that lengthened the proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to restore an action to the trial list after it had been struck for failure to submit a trial certification form.

The court applied the test governing restoration following administrative dismissal for delay, including whether the delay was intentional, whether it was inordinate and inexcusable, and whether the defendants suffered prejudice.

Although the delay of approximately 31 months was found to be inordinate and not reasonably explained, the plaintiff successfully rebutted the presumption of prejudice and the defendants failed to establish actual prejudice affecting the fairness of a trial.

The court held that the absence of certain radiological studies did not demonstrate a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The action was therefore restored to the trial list, but no costs were awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 48.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to restore a personal injury action to the trial list after it had been struck for failing to obtain pre‑trial and trial dates.

The court applied the four‑part test governing delay, including whether the delay was intentional or contumelious, whether it was inordinate and inexcusable, whether the presumption of prejudice was rebutted, and whether actual prejudice was demonstrated.

The court found a delay of two years and eight months in seeking pre‑trial and trial dates and concluded the delay was deliberate or, at minimum, inordinate and unexplained.

The plaintiff failed to provide evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The motion to restore the action to the trial list was therefore refused, although a related amendment correcting a misnomer was permitted.

The plaintiff moved to amend her statement of claim to add a claim for unidentified motorist coverage against the defendant insurer.

However, the plaintiff had previously brought a motion for the same relief in 2005 and delivered a notice of abandonment.

The court held that an abandoned motion cannot be revived absent inadvertence, mistake, misapprehension, or compelling special circumstances.

Finding no such circumstances, the court dismissed the motion to withdraw the notice of abandonment, thereby dismissing the motion to amend the statement of claim.