Duncan Boardman

Following an endorsement determining the underlying application, the court considered written submissions on costs.

Both parties had served offers to settle, but neither offer produced a result more favourable than the court’s decision, so Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure did not affect the costs analysis.

The successful applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling just over $31,500 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The respondent requested an opportunity to have the applicants’ bill assessed but provided no substantive basis to challenge the hourly rates, hours worked, or disbursements.

Applying the factors in Rule 57.01 and the fairness considerations articulated in Boucher v Public Accountants Council (Ontario), the court found the claimed costs reasonable and awarded the requested amount.

The applicants and respondent are neighbours involved in a boundary dispute over a shared driveway and a triangular piece of land.

The respondent claimed possessory title to the triangle through adverse possession, while the applicants sought a declaration of ownership and the removal of fences and interlocking brick installed by the respondent on their property.

The court found that the respondent's adverse possession claim failed because the previous registered owner had interrupted the exclusive possession by entering the land to cut down trees before the 10-year statutory period expired and prior to the property's conversion to the Land Titles system.

The court granted the applicants' request for a declaration of ownership and ordered the respondent to remove the trespassing structures.

The applicant was injured when she slipped and fell on a transit bus.

She received statutory accident benefits, but the insurer terminated her weekly income benefits after she returned to work.

The applicant later stopped working due to another workplace incident and sought reinstatement of her weekly income benefits, as well as medication and travel expenses.

The arbitrator found insufficient medical evidence connecting her ongoing inability to work to the bus accident, relying on medical reports indicating her injuries should not prevent her from performing her normal activities.

The claims for weekly income benefits and medical expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her hearing expenses.

The applicant, a homemaker, claimed she was totally disabled from performing her essential tasks after being injured as a passenger on a bus.

She applied for weekly benefits, childcare benefits, and a special award under the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for benefits, finding the applicant's evidence of total disability implausible and inconsistent with medical reports, her own conduct, and observations by the insurer's representatives.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was not substantially unable to perform her essential tasks.

However, the applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses as the proceeding was not brought for an improper purpose.