David Contant

The Applicant sought additional post-104 Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer had deducted amounts from the IRBs based on the Applicant's self-employment income reported on his tax returns.

The Applicant argued that he was not employed as defined by the Schedule and that his tax returns were incorrect.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant was self-employed during the period in dispute, as he continued to manage his rental properties and reported self-employment income on his tax returns.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Insurer correctly calculated the IRBs and dismissed the Applicant's claim for additional benefits and interest.

The defendant moved for summary judgment based on a limitation period defense.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend the pleading to add a corporate entity as a plaintiff, include unjust enrichment claims, and assert an assignment of rights.

The court found an implied contract between the corporate entity and the defendant, precluding an unjust enrichment claim.

The alleged assignment of rights from the corporate entity to the plaintiff was not effectual in law due to lack of written notice to the debtor.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim, restricted to breach of contract, was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was largely dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion seeking the production of documents from the insurer ahead of an arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator found that all documents sought had already been produced, except for clarifications and documents concerning periodic payments of $30.00 and $45.00 related to a housekeeping benefit.

The insurer agreed to produce these documents if they existed.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce any existing documentation regarding these payments by July 4, 2016.

Following a lengthy civil trial involving multiple plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle incident, the plaintiffs’ claims against several defendants—including a transportation company, police officers, and the provincial Crown—were dismissed.

The successful defendants sought substantial costs after a 56‑day trial and extensive pre‑trial litigation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in fixing costs rather than a strict accounting exercise.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis up to the defendants’ settlement offers and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, with adjustments made for excessive claims and unnecessary attendance of junior counsel.

The court also held the plaintiffs jointly and severally liable for the liability portion of the defendants’ costs, while allocating damages‑related costs severally among individual plaintiffs.

Requests for a Sanderson order and third‑party costs were denied.

A costs decision arising from a multi‑plaintiff bus accident action where one plaintiff settled prior to trial.

The settling plaintiff sought costs based on a proportional share of a collective liability account and individual damages account maintained for all plaintiffs.

The defendants disputed various docketed entries, including costs relating to unrelated proceedings, unsuccessful motions, and non‑taxable disbursements.

Applying the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality between the settlement value and the requested costs.

The court rejected the full amount sought and instead fixed a global costs award considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs were passengers on a Greyhound bus who were injured when another passenger, Davis, suddenly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the bus to crash.

Prior to boarding, Davis had exhibited signs of mild paranoia and had interacted with OPP officers, who concluded he was not a danger to himself or others.

The plaintiffs sued the OPP, the officers, Greyhound, and the bus driver for negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action against all defendants except Davis, finding that the police officers acted reasonably and had no legal grounds to apprehend or detain Davis under the Mental Health Act or common law.

The court also found that the bus driver and Greyhound met the high standard of care expected of a common carrier, as the sudden attack was not reasonably foreseeable and the driver's actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

The court proceeded to assess the hypothetical damages for each plaintiff.

The responding parent brought a motion seeking an interim shared parenting arrangement for a young child following relocation to another city approximately 225 kilometres away.

The moving parent sought primary residence of the child with limited access for the other parent and alleged concerns about the other parent’s behaviour.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo on interim motions involving custody and parenting, absent compelling evidence that a change is necessary to protect the child’s best interests.

Finding that the parties had historically shared parenting and that the relocation had not significantly altered the child’s experience with each parent, the court ordered joint custody and an alternating two‑week parenting schedule pending trial.

Requests for disclosure of child protection records were denied due to hearsay and insufficient evidence.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for defamation and awarding punitive damages.

They argued the trial judge erred by refusing to admit a 1996 newspaper article regarding the respondent's reputation, failing to consider a notice to admit, improperly using contempt evidence, and misapplying the test for punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or procedure.

The Court also upheld the punitive damages award, noting the malicious and outrageous nature of the defamation warranted punishment and deterrence.