Dale Orlando

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the settlement of two related personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court addresses disputes over the reasonableness and recoverability of various disbursements and legal fees, including expert reports, travel, and office expenses.

The court reduces certain disbursements and fees, providing detailed reasons for each adjustment, and clarifies the principles for assessing costs in complex personal injury litigation.

Two personal injury actions, arising from a 2014 collision, were commenced in North Bay.

The court, concerned about judicial resource shortages and the impact of R. v. Jordan timelines on civil matters, initiated discussions about transferring the actions to Ottawa, where the accident occurred.

The plaintiffs consented to the transfer, but the defendant opposed, arguing that a formal motion was required and that the transfer would be unfair given a prior decision to strike a jury notice to expedite the trial in North Bay.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 2.03 to dispense with the formal motion requirement, ordered the transfer, emphasizing that the interest of justice, particularly judicial availability in Ottawa, outweighed the defendant's objections to ensure the timely disposition of these long-standing cases.

The defendants Tholos Restaurant Inc. and Kaytoo Restaurant and Bar Limited brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence action brought by the plaintiff, Matthew Linton, who suffered a severe brain injury after falling down steps at a chalet following a bachelor party.

The plaintiff alleged commercial host liability, arguing the defendants overserved him alcohol, leading to his intoxication.

The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the amount of alcohol consumed, when and where it was consumed, and whether the commercial hosts knew or ought to have known of the plaintiff's intoxication.

The court emphasized the conflict between expert toxicologist evidence (suggesting obvious intoxication) and lay witness statements (denying visible impairment), and the risk of inconsistent findings if the motion were granted while the action against other defendants proceeded to trial.