Elise Jill Hallewick

Following a summary judgment motion with divided success between the plaintiff and Sun Life, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The court awarded costs to CHEO on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the hours claimed to be excessive.

No costs were awarded between the plaintiff and Sun Life as both parties failed on their respective summary judgment motions.

The plaintiff sued her former employer and long-term disability insurer, alleging they negligently misrepresented her options and wrongfully induced her to resign rather than continue her disability benefits.

The employer and insurer both brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted the employer's motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the plaintiff's resignation and termination of employment, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement's arbitration provisions.

However, the court dismissed the insurer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the insurer improperly maintained a singular focus on returning the plaintiff to a workplace environment that caused her disability.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the catastrophic impairment threshold under Criterion 8, demonstrating marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, noting the respondent's assessors failed to adequately consider the applicant's reliance on her partner and conducted flawed situational assessments.

The Tribunal awarded the cost of an in-home assessment but denied the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the proposed hours were overestimated and included tasks the applicant could perform independently.

This costs decision follows the trial judgment in a motor vehicle insurance dispute.

The court addresses the adjustment of the judgment for a Pierringer Agreement, calculation of prejudgment interest, and the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The court finds that the net damages to be paid by Economical are $13,008.86, with prejudgment interest of $1,292.14, and costs awarded on the Small Claims Court scale, totaling $7,909.26.

The decision discusses the application of Rule 49 offers, proportionality, and the policy behind limiting costs where the claim could have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Ercan Balpinar, brought an insurance claim against Economical Mutual Insurance Company and Highland Auto Body regarding inadequate repairs to a cargo van.

The vehicle was damaged in an accident, and Economical elected to repair it.

The plaintiff alleged the repairs were insufficient, particularly concerning frame damage, and sought further compensation, including for storage and a replacement vehicle, and punitive damages.

The court found that the initial repairs were inadequate and that a problem with the right front wheel, indicative of frame/suspension issues, was only corrected after a frame replacement years later.

The court awarded the plaintiff the cost of the frame replacement and towing charges, and limited storage and rental vehicle costs, but denied punitive damages, finding no bad faith on Economical's part.

The court emphasized the insurer's responsibility to ensure competent repairs when electing to repair a vehicle.

The defendant brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Rafik Yasso, to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) by a neuropsychologist and a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, citing past negative experiences with IME scheduling and the triggering of his anxiety/PTSD.

The court found that the defendant had a procedural and substantive entitlement to these examinations.

Despite the plaintiff's past difficulties, the court determined there was no compelling reason preventing his participation and that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without responding medical evidence outweighed the plaintiff's inconvenience.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the IMEs, with no costs awarded due to shared responsibility for the difficulties.

This medical malpractice action concerned the plaintiff's claim of chronic pain resulting from the defendants' alleged negligence in treating a ruptured Achilles tendon.

The court found that while Dr. Boivin breached the standard of care by failing to properly immobilize the plaintiff's foot or refer her to a specialist, and Kingsway Health Centre was negligent in administrative follow-up, these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's own non-compliance with medical advice and delay in seeking surgery were found to be the cause of her worsened condition.

The court also found the plaintiff to be an unreliable and incredible witness regarding her injuries and financial losses.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought default judgment arising from allegations of sexual abuse and breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants from 1978 to 1983.

The defendants failed to participate in the litigation process, leading to an uncontested trial on liability and damages.

The court found the defendants liable for sexual battery and breach of fiduciary duty.

Damages were assessed for general and aggravated damages, future care costs, and past care costs.

The court applied the "crumbling skull" rule, reducing the damage award by 25% due to the plaintiff's pre-existing psychological conditions from prior abuse.

The court also awarded substantial indemnity costs and prejudgment interest.

Following the final hearing of an application regarding child support, the successful respondent sought costs of $5,000.

The court found that while the respondent's offer to settle did not strictly meet the requirements for full recovery costs due to a release-like clause, the applicant's unreasonable conduct throughout the proceedings warranted a higher costs award.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant father sought retroactive adjustments to child support and section 7 expenses for the parties' two adult children for the years 2016 to 2022.

The respondent mother argued that child support should be determined based on the children's actual expenses and contributions since turning 18, but noted the father's failure to provide necessary disclosure.

The court dismissed the father's claims, finding he failed to provide sufficient evidence of the children's incomes, expenses, and ability to contribute, and that his conduct in the proceedings was frustrating and wasteful.

The court declared that no further child support was owed and neither child remained eligible.

The applicants' appeal of a decision by the Director of Land Titles was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $26,441.90 on a partial indemnity basis for the appeal, which involved a claim for $420 million in compensation for alleged fraudulent conveyances.

The applicants did not provide costs submissions.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle that costs awarded to the Crown should not be reduced merely because counsel is a salaried officer.

The court found the requested costs reasonable given the complexity and importance of the issues, and ordered the applicants to pay $26,441.90.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the last known address of the personal respondent, production of documents, particulars, and an extension of time to file her Reply.

The corporate respondent consented to providing the address and took no position on the extension of time, but opposed the request for production and particulars as premature.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the address, granted the extension of time, and denied the request for production and particulars as premature, noting that the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provide for document exchange prior to the hearing.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the appellant failed to prosecute the action in a timely fashion and that the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice due to the destruction of relevant records.

The appeal was dismissed.