Donald G. Martin

The appellant appealed a threshold ruling and costs order made by the trial judge in a motor vehicle accident action.

The appellant abandoned the appeal of the threshold ruling but argued the trial judge erred in departing from the usual costs consequences after the plaintiff obtained a judgment less favourable than the appellant's offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the trial judge's departure from the rule.

The Court set aside the order of no costs post-offer and awarded the appellant $70,000 in costs, to be set off against the $135,000 awarded to the respondent for pre-offer costs.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a defective driveway installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly bifurcated the trial and awarded an amount exceeding the claim.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in awarding judgment in excess of the amended claim of $4,381.65.

However, the court declined to order a re-hearing, finding the respondent had established liability and damages up to the claimed amount.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the judgment to $4,381.65.

The corporate insured appealed a motion judge's finding that it was not covered by its automobile insurance policy because it permitted an employee to drive without a valid driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the insured, a small family-run business, had a system for checking mail and reasonably relied on the Ministry of Transportation to send a licence renewal notice.

Because the insured took reasonable steps to keep informed of the licence status, it did not 'permit' the employee to drive while unauthorized, and coverage was upheld.

The appellant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, suffered severe injuries resulting in lymphedema.

At trial, liability was admitted, and a jury awarded her $290,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $30,000 for past income loss, and $43,300 under the Family Law Act, but zero for future income loss.

The appellant appealed the zero award for future income loss, arguing it was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence of the appellant's successful employment and promotions post-accident, and that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's expert evidence regarding her future loss of competitive advantage.

The plaintiffs appealed a jury award of $750 in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury by failing to instruct them that the defendant bears the onus of proving the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The Divisional Court found that the omission was a significant error on a critical legal issue that left the jury with a misapprehension of the applicable legal principles.

Concluding that the error caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding her 90 per cent liable for a motor vehicle accident.

The jury concluded that the appellant was not paying attention and collided with the rear of the respondent's vehicle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was an evidentiary basis for the jury's findings and the verdict was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no reasonable jury could have reached it.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting partition and sale of lands.

They argued there was an existing agreement for the purchase and sale of the lands.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's finding that the exchange of letters only committed the parties to a process and no binding agreement existed, as several terms had not been agreed upon.

The respondent's prima facie right to partition and sale was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff was involved in two separate motor vehicle accidents and sued multiple defendants, including her own insurer, State Farm, because one driver was uninsured.

At trial, one defendant, Hnatiuk, was found 100% responsible for the first accident, and the action against State Farm was dismissed.

The trial judge refused to order Hnatiuk to pay State Farm's costs (a Bullock or Sanderson order) and awarded the plaintiff solicitor-and-client costs against Hnatiuk based on an unaccepted offer to settle that included escalating costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, granting a Sanderson order directing Hnatiuk to pay State Farm's costs.

The Court dismissed Hnatiuk's appeal regarding the costs award, upholding the solicitor-and-client costs either under the discretion of Rule 49.13 or as a valid Rule 49 offer.