Heather Paterson

This endorsement addresses costs following a judgment where the plaintiff was awarded damages significantly below her claim and the simplified procedure cap.

The City of Toronto sought costs based on unaccepted offers to settle.

The court denied the plaintiff any costs due to her failure to submit costs submissions and because her award was less than 50% of the simplified procedure cap, making it unreasonable to continue under ordinary procedure.

The City's offers to settle, which included a requirement for a future-negotiated standard release, were found not to trigger Rule 49.10 costs consequences, consistent with *D’Anscenzo v. Nichols*.

However, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.13, considering the plaintiff's unrealistic claims, litigation delays, and failure to accept reasonable offers.

The City was awarded $35,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff, Ruth Kidane, brought an action for damages following a slip and fall on a sidewalk.

Liability was admitted by the City of Toronto, leaving causation and damages as the sole issues at trial.

The plaintiff sought over $1.2 million in damages, attributing various chronic health issues and an inability to start a daycare business to the fall.

The court applied a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, finding that the fall caused a minor head injury/concussion, multiple soft tissue injuries, and low mood, which resolved within one year.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims for other injuries and long-term effects, attributing them to pre-existing conditions.

The court awarded $45,000 for general damages, $4,000 for loss of income (limited to 2014), and $161.05 for out-of-pocket expenses, totaling $49,161.05.

Following a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from examinations for discovery, both parties sought costs.

The defendants had breached a consent timetable order by failing to answer undertakings for over 17 months, only providing answers in their responding materials.

The Master awarded the plaintiff $2,000 in costs, noting the motion was necessary to compel the undertakings and the defendants provided no satisfactory explanation for their delay.

The plaintiff moved to compel answers to undertakings and refused questions from the examinations for discovery of the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto.

The plaintiff also sought an order compelling representatives of both defendants to re-attend examination.

The court adjourned the portion of the motion regarding undertakings sine die.

For the refused questions, the court ordered TRCA and the City to provide written answers to several specific questions, while dismissing others.

The court denied the request for re-attendance at oral examination, ordering that all further questions arising from ordered answers and undertakings be addressed in writing.

An interpleader motion sought a declaration that a property transferred into the son’s name was held in trust for the mother and therefore not exigible by the son’s judgment creditors.

The responding bank argued the declaration of trust lacked evidentiary support and questioned its authenticity.

The court found the record contained deficiencies but also some evidence suggesting a possible trust, raising credibility issues unsuitable for determination on the motion record.

As a result, the motion for declaratory relief was dismissed and a trial of an issue was directed to determine beneficial ownership and the priority of competing writs of execution.