David Robert Findlay

The parties settled a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident six days before trial for $775,000 plus costs.

The plaintiff sought partial and substantial indemnity costs totalling approximately $246,000 in fees and $157,500 in disbursements.

The defendant argued the amounts were excessive.

The court reviewed the claimed fees and disbursements, noting some duplication and excessive preparation time.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court fixed the plaintiff's fees at $170,000 plus HST and disbursements at $98,800 inclusive of HST.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and emotional injuries, expenses, and loss of income resulting from an assault.

The offender, who punched the Applicant and broke his jaw, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The Board found the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded $6,000 for pain and suffering, $1,500 for loss of income, and $400 for legal costs, while denying the claim for prescription expenses due to lack of receipts.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action, the court addressed two outstanding costs issues: whether the plaintiff’s after‑the‑event (ATE) insurance premium was a compensable disbursement and how prejudgment interest should be calculated following amendments to the Insurance Act effective January 1, 2015.

The court held that ATE insurance premiums are discretionary litigation expenses and are not recoverable as taxable disbursements in Ontario, noting the absence of legislative reform comparable to the United Kingdom regime permitting recovery of such premiums.

On the issue of prejudgment interest, the court held that the amendment to s. 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act changing the rate of prejudgment interest does not apply retroactively because prejudgment interest is substantive in nature.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to prejudgment interest on general damages at the pre‑January 2015 rate of five percent per annum.

The appellant appealed a jury's damages award and a trial judge's costs order arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination rendered the trial unfair and that the jury was misdirected on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the damages appeal, finding the interventions did not compromise trial fairness and the causation instructions were adequate.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, setting aside a $60,000 penalty imposed on the appellant's insurer under the Insurance Act.

The Court found no evidence that the insurer failed to attempt to settle the claim expeditiously or that its participation in mediation was a sham.

Following a jury trial in a negligence action arising from a rear-end collision with a motorcycle, the plaintiff obtained a damages award of $248,000.

The plaintiff subsequently sought costs including augmented costs under the Insurance Act due to the defendant insurer’s failure to make reasonable settlement efforts and to meaningfully participate in mediation.

The court found the insurer’s participation in mediation was a sham and concluded that it failed to comply with its statutory obligations under ss. 258.5 and 258.6 of the Insurance Act.

As a result, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the plaintiff’s settlement offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter, and augmented the costs due to the refusal to mediate.

The total costs award was $217,000 plus HST, in addition to pre-judgment interest.

Following successful summary judgment motions dismissing a motor vehicle accident action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs of the action.

The plaintiff had commenced the claim approximately eleven years after the accident and the court previously found she had not exercised due diligence under the discoverability principles governing limitation periods.

In this costs decision, the court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no misconduct or exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the default rule that costs follow the event, the court declined to award substantial indemnity but fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants were awarded their requested partial indemnity costs as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendants brought summary judgment motions seeking dismissal of a motor vehicle accident claim on the basis that the action was commenced outside the limitation period under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff issued the claim nearly nine years after the accident and argued that discoverability did not arise until later diagnostic imaging revealed more serious injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff had ongoing and worsening symptoms for many years and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the possibility of a serious and permanent impairment.

Applying the discoverability principles and relevant appellate authority, the court concluded that a reasonable person would have investigated the injuries much earlier.

The claim was therefore statute‑barred and summary judgment was appropriate.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant requested a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment, which was not performed for several years due to a dispute over whether the insurer provided the necessary Permission to Disclose forms.

The insurer argued the applicant's subsequent application for arbitration was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The Arbitrator found that the onus was on the insurer to provide the forms, which it failed to do, and therefore the limitation period did not begin to run until the DAC report was eventually released.

The application for arbitration was held to be timely.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while participating in a W.C.B. vocational rehabilitation program and receiving a temporary supplement to a permanent partial disability award.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming entitlement to weekly income benefits under section 12(1) of the Schedule.

The Insurer paid benefits under section 13(1) (Benefit if No Income).

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant was neither employed nor self-employed while participating in the rehabilitation program, and that the W.C.B. supplement was not income from occupation or employment.

The Applicant's entitlement to weekly benefits was therefore correctly determined under section 13(1).

The applicants, parents of a 23-year-old who died in a motorcycle accident, applied for death benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the parents were not "dependants" of the deceased at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that the parents failed to establish that they were principally dependent for financial support on the deceased, as their income from social assistance and workers' compensation exceeded the financial contributions made by the deceased.

The claim for death benefits was dismissed.

The insurer's request for an award for a frivolous arbitration was denied, and the applicants were awarded their arbitration expenses.