Dallas J. Lee

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following the settlement of a multi-party action arising from a 2011 boating accident.

The only remaining issue was the amount of costs payable to the plaintiffs.

The court awarded $146,091.74 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding this amount fair and reasonable.

The court declined to award a premium or substantial indemnity costs, finding no basis for such an award in the circumstances, and emphasized the importance of reasonableness and the discretion of the court in costs matters.

This appeal arose from a tragic boat accident involving multiple fatalities and injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed three consolidated appeals: liability of government respondents, interpretation of the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap, and costs.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the boat operators were solely liable for the accident, dismissing the appeal against the government respondents.

It also affirmed that the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap for maritime claims for loss of life or personal injury does not include costs and interest.

While leave to appeal the quantum of costs and the Sanderson Order was denied, leave was granted on one specific costs issue, resulting in both estates being held jointly and severally liable for one plaintiff's costs.

This decision addresses costs following summary judgment motions in two consolidated actions stemming from a fatal boating accident.

The court had previously found the individual defendants (Comrie and Monteiro Estates) liable for the accident, while dismissing claims against the government defendants (Canada, Ontario, and Leamington).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful plaintiffs (Algra and Feltham) against the individual defendants.

Crucially, the court also granted a Sanderson order, directing the individual defendants (Comrie and Monteiro Estates) to jointly and severally pay the costs of the successful government defendants.

The court found it reasonable for the plaintiffs to have sued multiple defendants given the complex facts, lack of eyewitnesses, and the individual defendants' attempts to shift blame to the government entities.

The moving parties, the estates of the deceased boat operator and owner, brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether the $1,000,000 liability cap under s. 29(a) of the Marine Liability Act is inclusive or exclusive of costs and prejudgment interest.

The actions arose from a fatal boating accident on Lake Erie.

The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and concluded that claims for costs and interest serve different purposes than claims for loss of life or personal injury.

The court ruled that the statutory limitation is exclusive of costs and interest.

The plaintiffs brought negligence actions following a fatal nighttime boating accident where a pleasure craft struck a breakwater, resulting in three deaths and two serious injuries.

The plaintiffs sued the estates of the vessel's operator and owner, as well as the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

On summary judgment motions for liability, the court found the operator and the owner/master jointly and severally liable, apportioning fault equally at 50 percent each, due to their failure to keep a proper lookout, travelling at an unsafe speed, and the operator's impairment.

The actions against the government defendants were dismissed, as the court found that the existing navigation lights were visible and any alleged failures regarding the breakwater's illumination or background lighting did not cause or contribute to the collision.

The plaintiff moved for judgment to enforce a settlement with Coca-Cola Bottling Company regarding short-term disability benefits.

The dispute centered on the scope of the release demanded by Coca-Cola, which sought to include all future benefits, including group health and pension benefits, arguing it was part of a global settlement.

The court found that the settlement was solely for short-term disability benefits and not a global settlement, thus the broader release was not contemplated or negotiated.

The plaintiff's motion was granted.