Donald Kevin Carroll

Following a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined costs after the parties failed to agree.

The jury awarded modest damages, but the plaintiff’s general damages and Family Law Act damages were unrecoverable due to the Insurance Act threshold.

The plaintiffs obtained judgment less favourable than the defendant’s Rule 49 offer to settle, triggering cost consequences under Rule 49.10(2).

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs up to the date of the defendant’s offer and awarded the defendant substantial partial indemnity costs thereafter.

Separate costs were also awarded to the defendants-by-counterclaim who successfully defended a Negligence Act contribution and indemnity claim.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision awarding spousal death benefits to the natural father of the deceased's child.

The couple had separated and were living apart at the time of the fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by applying a rebuttable presumption that common-law cohabitation continues despite separation when the couple has a child, until concrete steps are taken to terminate the relationship.

The appeal was allowed, the arbitration order revoked, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when her bicycle collided with a tow truck driven by an employee in the course of his employment.

The tow truck was owned by the employer.

The employer claimed 'protected defendant' status under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act, which limits the liability of motor vehicle owners.

The Court of Appeal held that while the employer was protected in its capacity as the vehicle's owner, it was not protected from vicarious liability in its capacity as the driver's employer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought a spousal death benefit of $50,000 following the death of his common-law partner in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the couple had separated and were no longer cohabiting in a relationship of some permanence at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that despite living in separate residences for economic reasons, the couple maintained a relationship of some permanence, particularly given the recent birth of their child.

The arbitrator awarded the $50,000 death benefit, plus a $25,000 special award due to the insurer's unreasonable conduct in failing to advise the applicant of his potential entitlement and delaying the claim.

The appellant, a Chief of Police, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty incident at a curling bonspiel where he was intoxicated and acted boisterously.

The appellant argued that the disciplinary charge was statute-barred under s. 11 of the Public Authorities Protection Act because it was laid more than six months after the incident.

The Commission held that police officers have a statutory duty under the Police Act to be of good conduct, even when off duty, and therefore the six-month limitation period in the Public Authorities Protection Act applied to disciplinary proceedings for breaches of the Code of Offences.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.