3 total
The court approved a settlement but voided the solicitors' contingency fee agreement, reducing their fees.
The plaintiffs sought court approval for a settlement of $2,750,000 for a disabled plaintiff, Jared Edwards, who suffered a brain injury at a summer camp, and approval of their contingency fee agreement (CFA) with De Rose Professional Corporation.
The court approved the settlement as being in the plaintiff's best interests, but found the CFA void due to non-compliance with the Solicitors Act and its regulations, and because it was not fair and reasonable.
The court reduced the legal fees on a quantum meruit basis and ordered the additional funds to be used for a larger annuity for the plaintiff.
Appeal dismissed; insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify MTO for its own negligence.
The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action seeking declarations that the respondent insurer was obliged to defend and indemnify the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) in litigation arising from a construction accident.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurance certificate and policy only covered the MTO for vicarious liability arising from the contractor's acts, not for the MTO's own negligence.
The court also noted that the appellants' delay of over eight years in advancing the claim prejudiced the respondent.
Appeal of liability and judicial interference dismissed; costs premium set aside as circumstances were not exceptional.
The appellant Province appealed a trial judgment finding it 70% liable for a motor vehicle accident that rendered the respondent a quadriplegic.
The trial judge found the Province's subcontractor failed to sand the icy highway.
The Province appealed on grounds of liability, apportionment, excessive judicial intervention destroying impartiality, and the award of a $50,000 costs premium.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability, apportionment, and judicial intervention, finding the trial judge's interventions did not amount to reversible error.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the costs premium, finding the circumstances were not so exceptional as to warrant a premium.
