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.

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.