Douglas M. Bryce

The appellant sought long-term disability (LTD) benefits from the respondent insurer following a motor vehicle accident while working.

The appellant initially collected Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits but retroactively elected to pursue a tort action against the other driver.

The respondent sought to offset LTD benefits by the amount of WSIB benefits for which the appellant was eligible, rather than the amount actually received.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the respondent, finding no meaningful distinction from the precedent in Richer v. Manulife Financial.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal with costs.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits, arguing that WSIB benefits available to the plaintiff should offset any LTD entitlement, even if the plaintiff elected to pursue a tort claim instead of WSIB.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing he was not eligible for WSIB benefits due to his election and that quantification was complex.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, confirming the insurer's right to apply a deemed offset for WSIB benefits the plaintiff *could have received* for the periods from November 26, 2012, to August 23, 2014, and from August 23, 2014, to June 1, 2015, effectively reducing LTD benefits to nil for these periods.

However, the motion was dismissed for the period after June 1, 2015, as there was insufficient evidence to determine the quantum of WSIB benefits that would have been available to the plaintiff.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action where the defendants were found not liable, the defendants sought costs of the proceeding.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be reduced due to impecuniosity, excessive preparation time, inclusion of disbursements for unused experts and surveillance, and the derivative nature of a Family Law Act claim.

The court held that disbursements for unused experts may still be recoverable if reasonably incurred in preparation for trial, but reduced the defendants’ claim by excluding preparation related to two aborted trials.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s financial hardship as a discretionary factor.

Balancing Rule 57.01 considerations, the court awarded reduced costs to the defendants.

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident caused by the defendant’s negligence, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued that settlement offers should shift costs after a certain date under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the defendant’s offers did not comply with the formal requirements of Rule 49.10 and declined to give them the requested cost consequences.

Applying the general rule that costs follow the event and considering the factors in Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs for the action.