Gaynor J. Roger

The City of Toronto sought substantial indemnity costs of $75,000 after successfully obtaining summary judgment against the plaintiff, Dimostenis Karpouzis, in an occupier's liability and public nuisance action.

The City argued that Karpouzis's conduct unduly lengthened the proceedings and that he rejected offers to settle.

The court awarded the City partial indemnity costs of $55,000, finding that while Karpouzis's delays were a factor, the City's offers to settle were "strategic bullying" rather than genuine attempts to resolve a serious personal injury claim, and thus did not warrant a punitive costs award on a substantial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff, Dimostenis Karpouzis, sued the City of Toronto for negligence (occupiers' liability) and public nuisance after suffering a serious brain injury while skateboarding at night on an unlighted recreational trail in a city park.

The City moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the City's motion, finding that the City did not act with reckless disregard under the Occupiers' Liability Act, as the risks of using an unlit trail at night were obvious and willingly assumed by the plaintiff.

The public nuisance claim was also dismissed, as keeping a forested park open at night with an unilluminated trail was not found to interfere unreasonably with public health, safety, or convenience.

The plaintiffs were required to show cause at a status hearing why their professional negligence action against the defendant accountant should not be dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14(13).

The court applied the conjunctive test from Khan, requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the delay was adequately explained by the need to gather particulars, the death of a plaintiff, and the defendant's health issues.

Despite the defendant's health and the passage of time, the court found no non-compensable prejudice, noting the case relied heavily on documentary evidence.

The action was allowed to continue, with the condition that the defendant's discovery be conducted via written questions.