4 total
Costs awarded against adversarial respondent on partial indemnity scale for judicial review, leave, and appeal.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal.
The court determined that costs should be awarded against the respondent Sudbury Downs Holding, as it stood in an adversarial relationship to the appellant, unlike the Ontario Racing Commission.
Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale for the application for judicial review, the motion for leave to appeal, and the appeal itself, totaling $42,880 in fees plus disbursements and GST.
Appeal of jury verdict dismissing crossclaim in fatal motor vehicle accident dismissed; evidentiary rulings upheld.
The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their crossclaim against the respondent trailer manufacturer following a fatal motor vehicle accident.
The jury found the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the appellant driver and transport company.
On appeal, the appellants argued the verdict was unreasonable and challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of a deceased driver's statement and log book entries, and the exclusion of coroner's inquest findings.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence and the trial judge made no errors in his evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
Explosion during welding repair on a commercial truck's permanently installed equipment constitutes an automobile accident.
The applicant was injured when a storage tank in the back of a pick-up truck exploded while a neighbour was welding bolts to it.
The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits, but the insurer denied the claim, arguing the injury was not caused by the 'use or operation' of an automobile.
The arbitrator applied the two-part test from Amos, finding that repairing equipment permanently installed on a commercial vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which such vehicles are put.
The arbitrator also found a direct causal relationship between the repair work and the explosion.
The arbitrator concluded the applicant was injured in an accident and awarded expenses.
Appeal dismissed; forty-year title search rule under the Registry Act extinguishes prior conflicting registered claims.
The appellants and respondents disputed ownership of a five-foot strip of land due to a historical surveying error.
The respondents claimed title under the Registry Act, arguing that title searches need only go back forty years, which allowed them to rely on their predecessors' title and ignore the appellants' 1941 registered claim.
The trial judge ruled in favour of the appellants, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the Court of Appeal in their entirety.
