David F. MacDonald

The plaintiff sued a fitness instructor and gym for injuries sustained when an air-filled medicine ball bounced and hit her in the chin during a 'slam ball' exercise.

The plaintiff alleged the instructor was negligent for providing a bouncing ball without proper instruction or warning.

The court found that the instructor met the standard of care, having provided adequate verbal and visual instructions, and that using an air-filled ball was consistent with industry standards.

The action was dismissed, with the court concluding the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune.

The parties were unable to agree on costs following a motion where the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their statement of claim to increase damages and ordered the defendant to answer undertakings, but the balance of the motion was dismissed.

The court found that the defendant was the overall successful party as the plaintiffs were unsuccessful on the most contentious issues.

Taking into account the divided success and the late stage at which the motion was brought, the court awarded the defendant costs of $8,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs and defendant settled a motor vehicle accident claim for $732,835 just prior to trial, leaving costs to be determined by the court.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $572,000, while the defendant proposed approximately $394,000.

The court noted that liability was clear from the outset, yet the defendant failed to admit liability and delayed making an offer to settle until two weeks before trial, unnecessarily increasing the plaintiffs' costs.

After adjusting for excessive hourly rates for students/clerks and some excessive preparation time, the court fixed the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs at $310,000 plus HST for fees and $160,000 inclusive of HST for disbursements.

The applicants sought a determination of whether a lessee of a leased vehicle could access the lessor’s insurance coverage beyond the statutory $1 million cap under s. 267.12 of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

They argued that a legislative gap existed between the 2006 amendments to the Insurance Act limiting lessor liability and the later approval of the OEF 110 endorsement restricting coverage for lessees, allowing lessees to access the lessor’s insurance as unnamed insureds during the interim.

The court rejected this argument, holding that s. 267.12 must be interpreted in light of the legislative purpose of protecting lessors and their insurers by capping exposure.

Interpreting the statute to permit lessees to access excess or umbrella policies would undermine the legislative scheme.

The court further held that the excess and umbrella policies at issue did not provide coverage to the lessee based on their wording and the fact that the lessor was not a named insured under the relevant policies.

The application was dismissed.