4 total
The successful plaintiff in a truck engine failure trial was awarded $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.
This endorsement addresses the costs arising from a trial where the Plaintiff, 2599475 Ontario Inc., was successful in proving the cause of a truck engine failure.
The Plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $17,038.68, while the Defendant, 2549445 Ontario Inc. trading as House of Diesel, argued for a reduction, citing the Plaintiff's lower recovery than initially sought and the Defendant's partial success on damages and in resisting a summary judgment motion.
The court awarded the Plaintiff $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the quantum generally reasonable but applying a modest reduction due to the Plaintiff having advanced duplicative and unjustified damage claims.
Repair shop found liable for catastrophic truck engine failure due to missing snap rings.
The plaintiff commercial trucking company sued the defendant repair shop after its truck suffered a catastrophic engine failure shortly after being repaired.
The court found that the defendant's mechanics negligently failed to install snap rings during the engine rebuild, constituting both a breach of contract and negligence.
The plaintiff was awarded $80,757.51 in damages, which included a refund of the repair costs, lease payments, and towing expenses.
However, the court reduced the plaintiff's $200,000 claim, finding a failure to mitigate damages because the plaintiff neither repaired the truck nor purchased a replacement to continue business operations.
The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions for failing to provide necessaries of life and unlawful confinement of a child due to extreme unsanitary conditions.
The appellants, C.O. and N.P., appealed convictions for failure to provide necessaries of life and an order for a new trial on unlawful confinement, stemming from the unsanitary conditions in their apartment and the confinement of their four-year-old daughter, J. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, affirming that risk of harm is an element of the necessaries offence under s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code and that the conditions of confinement are relevant to the "lawful authority" defence under s. 279(2).
The court found the trial judge erred in refusing to take judicial notice of the health risks posed by the cumulative unsanitary conditions.
The matter was remitted for sentencing on the necessaries charge.
The court overturned acquittals for failing to provide necessaries of life, holding that a sanitary environment is a necessary of life and actual risk of harm need not be proven.
The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of failing to provide necessaries of life and forcible confinement of their four-year-old child.
The trial judge erred by requiring proof of actual risk of harm for the necessaries charge under s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, and by not considering the egregious conditions of confinement for the forcible confinement charge.
The appeal court found that a sanitary environment is a necessary of life and the child was in necessitous circumstances, overturning the acquittal on necessaries.
For forcible confinement, the court held that the parents' authority to confine ceases when conduct is abusive or harmful, remitting this charge for a new trial.
