C. Morrison

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiffs' action, the defendant TD sought partial indemnity costs of $231,077.50.

The plaintiffs argued for a reduction based on the principal plaintiff's impecuniosity, the novelty of the case, and excessive time claimed.

The court found that while the plaintiff's financial circumstances warranted some moderation, the novelty of the case did not justify a reduction as basic negligence principles applied.

The court also found some of TD's claimed time excessive, but noted the plaintiffs' conduct caused significant delay.

The court awarded TD costs of $130,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff was severely assaulted by another customer in the vestibule of a TD Bank ATM late at night.

The plaintiff sued TD Bank for negligence and breach of the Occupier's Liability Act, alleging inadequate security measures.

TD brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

After conducting a voir dire to determine the admissibility of five expert reports, the court found that the assault was a random, unforeseeable event and that TD's security measures were reasonable for a low-risk branch.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action against TD.

The defendant sought to proceed with a summary judgment motion, but an issue remained regarding the cross-examination of experts.

The plaintiff argued the matter was too complicated for summary judgment and should proceed to trial.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the defendant was entitled to have its motion heard.

The court directed that the experts be cross-examined in open court on all issues relating to their reports, not just their qualifications, to allow the court to exercise its gatekeeper function regarding the admissibility of the evidence.

This action arose from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a tractor and a passenger van.

The main action settled, leaving a third-party claim by the defendants (tractor operator and owner) against the Township of Cramahe for contribution and indemnity.

The defendants alleged the Township was negligent and breached its statutory duty by failing to maintain Telephone Road in a reasonable state of repair, specifically by not painting a centerline.

The court found that the absence of a centerline constituted a state of non-repair, as it was required by the Ontario Traffic Manual guidelines.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the third-party claim, finding that the defendants failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that 'but for' the absence of the centerline, the accident would not have occurred.

The court concluded that the driver of the van either never identified the tractor as a hazard or did not have sufficient time to react, and the centerline would have made no difference.

This is a costs decision following three separate motions heard on January 25, 2018, in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (father) was substantially successful on the issues of access, appointment of an Office of the Children's Lawyer, leave to amend, production of documents, removal of the child from Canada, and unsupervised access in Germany.

The respondent (mother) was unsuccessful on most contested issues, though the parties reached consent resolutions on access and child support.

The court awarded costs to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, considering divided success, the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and proportionality.

Following a motion where the respondent was largely successful, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of over $19,000.

The court reduced the amount due to excessive preparation time, high hourly rates, and the improper inclusion of clerical tasks and unrelated matters.

The court awarded the respondent $9,000 plus disbursements.

The court also declined the respondent's invitation to order costs personally against the applicant's counsel, finding no basis for such an order.

Two related applications addressed whether a commercial general liability insurer owed a duty to defend or indemnify its insured gas station operators for environmental contamination claims brought by a landlord.

The landlord sought a declaration requiring the insurer to indemnify the tenants, while the insurer sought a declaration that its policy provided no coverage.

The court held that the landlord, as a stranger to the insurance contract, could not pursue indemnification before obtaining judgment against the insured under s. 132 of the Insurance Act.

Interpreting the policy wording and pollution exclusion clauses, the court found the claim fell squarely within the policy’s pollution exclusions.

The insurer therefore had no duty to defend or indemnify the tenants in the underlying environmental contamination action.