Gary Mazin

An appeal concerning reasonable apprehension of bias and adjudicative independence in administrative tribunal decision-making.

The applicant sought a determination that her motor vehicle accident injuries met the statutory threshold for catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator initially determined the threshold was not met.

An anonymous letter subsequently revealed that the executive chair of the tribunal cluster had reviewed and altered the adjudicator's draft decision before release.

The Divisional Court found a reasonable apprehension of lack of adjudicative independence due to the imposed consultation process lacking procedural safeguards.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, emphasizing that consultation cannot be imposed by a superior level of authority without the adjudicator's consent and that robust procedural protections are required to safeguard independence.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

This endorsement addresses costs thrown away following the adjournment of a trial due to the plaintiff's unforeseen hospitalization for mental health reasons.

The court found the plaintiff's inability to attend was unforeseen and unforeseeable, and it was the first adjournment in the matter.

Submissions were made regarding costs thrown away, but the court decided to leave the determination of costs to the presiding judge at the eventual trial.

The plaintiff, Parbattie Poonwasee, sought costs after a successful negligence action against the defendant, Cecilia Plaza, following a motor vehicle accident.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $43,014.93 after deductions.

The plaintiff had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $50,000, which the defendant rejected.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 principles, found the plaintiff entitled to partial indemnity costs, noting the defendant's "hardball" litigation strategy and lack of a settlement offer.

The court rejected arguments for denying costs based on simplified procedure limits or "divided success." While acknowledging proportionality, the court reduced the plaintiff's requested costs of $201,479.37 to $120,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST, due to duplicative, inappropriate, or excessive billing, including secretarial work billed by law clerks.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

Two years after the accident, the plaintiff suffered a severe stroke that left him totally disabled.

The central issue was whether the accident caused the stroke due to the plaintiff's alleged increased smoking and sedentary lifestyle following the collision.

The court found the stroke was an unrelated intervening event, relying on expert evidence that the plaintiff's heavy smoking predated the accident and his lifestyle was not sufficiently sedentary to cause a deep vein thrombosis.

The court awarded $100,000 in general damages for the accident-related chronic pain and mechanical back issues, but denied future income loss and most future care costs, as the plaintiff's total disability was caused by the non-compensable stroke.

Following a three-week jury trial in a personal injury action, the plaintiff was awarded $241,740 in damages.

Prior to trial, the defendants had served an offer to settle for $375,000 plus costs.

Because the jury award was less favourable than the defendants' offer, the defendants sought costs from the date of the offer pursuant to Rule 49.10.

The plaintiff argued that her impecuniosity should relieve her from paying the defendants' costs, as it would effectively offset her damages award.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to deviate from the normal costs rules.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs thereafter.

A minor plaintiff catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2007 sought to add a municipality as a defendant in 2015.

The municipality argued the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that notice was not given within the required ten-day period under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The motion judge allowed the amendment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the two-year limitation period did not bar the claim (as it began running when the mother held herself out as litigation guardian in June 2014), the ten-day notice requirement was not satisfied.

The mother, as litigation guardian, had no reasonable excuse for failing to give notice within ten days of the accident, and the claim against the municipality was therefore barred.

This endorsement assesses costs following the plaintiff's acceptance of the defendants' offer to settle a motor vehicle accident claim for $34,000 plus partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought over $180,000 in fees and disbursements.

The court applied Rule 58.06, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

It found the plaintiff's initial damage claims excessive, particularly for income loss and housekeeping expenses, which lacked strong evidentiary support.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, excluding certain expert reports and medical illustrations, and applying a proportionality reduction to the remaining fees and disbursements.

The minor plaintiff, Bayden Zachary Azzeh, brought a motion to add the City of Greater Sudbury and other parties as defendants in an action for traumatic brain injuries sustained in a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The City opposed, arguing prejudice due to late addition, an expired limitation period, and failure to meet the Municipal Act's ten-day notice requirement.

The court found no uncompensable prejudice to the City, determined the limitation period for the minor did not run until a litigation guardian was appointed (June 2014 at earliest), and accepted that being an infant constituted a reasonable excuse for the initial lack of municipal notice.

The court further found that the subsequent litigation guardian provided notice within ten days of her appointment.

The motion to add the City as a defendant was granted, and other parties were added by consent, with the order made nunc pro tunc.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff obtained a damages award after the jury found the defendant negligent.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $547,000 or partial indemnity costs of approximately $417,000, while the defendant argued costs should be limited to $100,000 in fees and $50,000 in disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court considered factors including the importance of the claim, the complexity of the medical evidence, the conduct of the parties at trial, and the proportionality of costs to the damages recovered.

The court concluded that substantial indemnity costs were not justified but that significant partial indemnity costs were appropriate given the complexity of the evidence and trial process.