Douglas Joel Dick

This costs endorsement addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the dismissal of a motion for intervention by Gregory John Monforton, the former lawyer for the plaintiffs, in a complex civil action.

The court reviews the governing legal principles for costs in Ontario, including the discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, and applies them to the facts.

The court finds that the three sets of responding parties—CP Rail, Andrew Williams, and the Corporation of the Town of Lakeshore—are each entitled to their own costs, rejects the argument that only one set of costs should be awarded, and reduces the amount claimed by CP Rail for preparation of its factum as excessive.

The court fixes costs in the amounts of $40,553.48 to CP Rail, $16,276.61 to Andrew Williams, and $20,110.95 to Lakeshore, all payable by the proposed intervenor.

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing death and bodily harm under the Highway Traffic Act following a collision with a semi-trailer.

The court heard both the trial on the merits and a Charter s. 11(b) delay motion.

The court found the defendant not guilty of careless driving, concluding that the collision was due to an unexpected and insufficiently warned-of hazard (a dark, slow-moving semi-trailer blocking the lane at night with inadequate reflective markings and no hazard lights), rather than the defendant's lack of due care.

Although the court found a Charter s. 11(b) breach due to prosecutorial delay, the motion was dismissed as moot given the acquittal.

The insurer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that its liability under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Coverage was limited because there was no corroborative “other material evidence” of an unidentified vehicle involved in the accident.

The plaintiffs alleged the driver took evasive action to avoid an unidentified vehicle, causing a rollover collision and catastrophic injuries.

The court reviewed physical evidence including tire marks, sensor diagnostic data, police notes, and an accident reconstruction expert report.

The court held that this evidence, if accepted at trial, could constitute physical evidence indicating the involvement of an unidentified automobile within the meaning of the OPCF 44R endorsement.

As a result, a genuine issue requiring a trial existed and summary judgment was inappropriate.