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 moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to one responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,000.

No costs were awarded to the other responding parties as no factum was filed.

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.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell from the rear bumper of her parked pick-up truck after the tailgate collapsed due to an allegedly defective latch mechanism.

She sued the manufacturer nearly five years later.

The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period for 'damages occasioned by a motor vehicle' under s. 206(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the truck was not the dominant feature of the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding the truck was not acting in the character of a motor vehicle and the damages were not occasioned by a motor vehicle.

The appellant employee suffered a mental breakdown and sued her employer for negligent infliction of mental suffering and negligent supervision, following a period of workplace restructuring, denial of a promotion, and disciplinary actions for absenteeism.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the employer's actions were reasonable responses to declining performance and that the employer was unaware of the employee's mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that even if a free-standing tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering exists in the employment context, the trial judge's factual findings precluded liability.