2 total
Small Claims Court negligence finding against spa owner for electrolysis-induced infection upheld on appeal.
The appellant spa owner appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for negligence after the respondent suffered severe facial infections from receiving electrolysis shortly after dermal filler injections.
The respondent cross-appealed the $6,000 damages award, seeking $25,000.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation and negligence.
The cross-appeal on damages was also dismissed, as the award was not wholly erroneous, but the judgment was varied to include $1,400 in pre-judgment interest.
Court reduces claimed legal fees and disallows expert interest in fixing trial costs.
Following a successful trial in an accident benefits dispute, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of trial costs after the Court of Appeal permitted submissions on the issue.
The plaintiff sought nearly $297,000 in legal fees plus significant disbursements, including expert accounts with high compound interest.
The court held that the interest component of the damages under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule did not justify treating the litigation as a $500,000 case for costs purposes.
The hourly rates claimed by plaintiff’s counsel were reduced and significant reductions were made to the claimed fees and certain disbursements.
The court fixed partial indemnity fees at $170,000 plus GST and disallowed interest claimed on expert disbursements.
