Daniel Reisler

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $275,000 in fees, $100,000 in disbursements, and $30,000 for costs incurred in pursuing a SABS settlement that significantly benefited the defendants.

The court denied the plaintiff's claim for litigation loan interest due to insufficient evidence.

The defendants' request for costs under Rule 49.10(2) was dismissed because the plaintiff's judgment exceeded the defendants' offer.

The plaintiff, a prominent human rights lawyer, was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding her bicycle.

The defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act and was found wholly liable.

The court accepted expert medical evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and chronic migraines, which effectively ended her legal career.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important function, and awarded substantial damages including $250,000 in general damages, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

The defendant brought a threshold motion during jury deliberations in a motor vehicle accident trial.

The jury awarded the plaintiff damages for pain and suffering, out-of-pocket expenses, and future health care costs.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright and found that the plaintiff suffered a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function due to chronic pain.

The defendant's threshold motion was dismissed, and the jury's award was upheld subject to statutory deductibles and collateral benefit deductions.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant.

Prior to the accident, both the plaintiff and the driver had consumed alcohol at the All Star Tap & Grill House.

The court found the driver 80% liable for the accident due to impaired driving and the commercial host 20% liable for over-serving alcohol and failing to prevent the intoxicated driver from operating a vehicle.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for failing to wear a seatbelt, entering a vehicle with an impaired driver, and encouraging the driver to speed.

The court assessed the plaintiff's damages, including $300,000 for non-pecuniary damages, significant amounts for past and future loss of income, and over $9 million for the cost of future care.

Family Law Act claims were also awarded to the plaintiff's parents and siblings.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident involving an impaired driver, the plaintiff sought to sign judgment without applying the statutory deductible under s. 267.5 and s. 267.7 of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff argued the tavern defendant had waived reliance on the deductible by objecting to proposed jury questions that would have apportioned liability solely between the driver and the tavern.

The court rejected the waiver argument, finding the jury’s answers effectively determined the tavern’s negligence at one percent and the driver’s responsibility at the balance.

Applying the principles in Sullivan Estate v. Bond, the court held that an unprotected defendant is liable only for its proportionate share of the statutory deductible.

Judgment was therefore to be signed with the tavern responsible only for one percent of the $30,000 deductible.

Following a jury verdict in a complex personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a licensed establishment, the successful plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $300,000.

The defendant argued that its offers to settle should affect the costs award and that the statutory deductible under s. 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act should be deducted from the damages when assessing whether settlement offers were exceeded.

The court held that the statutory deductible must not be subtracted when determining entitlement to costs, following appellate authority.

Although the defendant’s settlement offers did not comply with Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, they remained relevant under Rule 49.13 as discretionary factors.

Considering proportionality, the complexity of the trial, the amount recovered compared to the amount claimed, and counsel conduct during trial, the court fixed costs at $150,000 plus HST and disbursements.