H.J. Williams

Following a 34-day jury trial for a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court determined several post-verdict issues.

The jury awarded damages to a minor plaintiff who sustained a traumatic brain injury and to his half-sister, while finding the co-defendants not liable.

The court declined to amend the jury's $55,000 award for post-secondary studies, finding it was not a mere clerical error.

The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest from the date the insurer had actual knowledge of the claim, despite the lack of formal written notice under the Insurance Act.

A management fee of $30,000 was awarded based on the real and substantial possibility that the minor plaintiff would be found incapable of managing his property upon turning 18.

On costs, the court declined to give weight to the unsuccessful defendant's non-compliant global settlement offer because it failed to allocate amounts among the separately represented plaintiffs.

The unsuccessful defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs and the successful defendants' costs up to the date it admitted liability via a Sanderson order.

The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision for which the defendant admitted liability.

The court found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, specifically chronic pain and somatic symptom disorder.

The court awarded $100,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, $394,800.32 for future loss of income, $19,655.37 for out-of-pocket expenses, and various amounts for future care costs, while dismissing the claim for past loss of income.

The separated parents disagreed on which school their two young sons should attend.

The mother wanted them to attend a local public school offering early French immersion, while the father wanted them to attend a private school founded by his mother.

The court applied the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as class size, individual attention, continuity, and the children's specific needs.

The court ordered that both children attend the private school, noting the smaller class sizes and the father's parents' offer to pay tuition.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on a mortgage and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim as statute-barred.

However, the plaintiff failed to include the request to dismiss the counterclaim in its notice of motion.

Citing the need for active case management and proportionality, the court declined to dismiss the limitation period argument outright and instead ordered a timetable allowing the plaintiff to amend its notice of motion and the defendants to file responding evidence.

The client, a lawyer himself, brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order for the assessment of his former law firm's account.

The client argued that the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction under section 3 of the Solicitors Act because the retainer was disputed, as he had been quoted a flat fee but was billed on an hourly basis after his real estate transaction became complicated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the client did not dispute the existence of the retainer or that the work was authorized and performed satisfactorily.

The court held that the disagreement was solely over the quantum of the fees, which falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the assessment officer.