Hugh George Brown

The plaintiff moved to amend her claim to continue the action under the simplified procedure, which would require striking the defendant’s jury notice.

The defendant opposed, arguing prejudice if deprived of a jury trial and that the trial would exceed the five-day limit of the simplified rules.

The court found the trial could be completed within five days with proper management and that striking the jury notice would not cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court ordered the action to proceed under the simplified procedure, struck the jury notice, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The Co-operators General Insurance Company, successful in a prior application, sought substantial indemnity costs of $103,375.96 against Definity Insurance Company, an intervenor.

Definity argued for partial indemnity costs of $58,884.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity, citing Co-operators' own conduct, including late disclosure of key documents and a last-minute re-election to proceed by judge alone after initially seeking a jury trial, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

The court awarded $70,000 inclusive of costs, disbursements, and HST to Co-operators from Definity.

This decision addresses the quantum of costs following a 4-day jury trial where the plaintiff was successful on liability but found contributorily negligent, resulting in an award of $58,590.09.

The plaintiff sought $206,960.36 in costs, while the defendants proposed $45,400.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and considering Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49.10(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiff's requested costs disproportionate and unreasonable due to excessive hourly fees and unnecessary disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues for trial concerning where the injured party was seated and whether wearing a seat belt would have mitigated her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed a seat belt would have made no difference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing there were two genuine issues for trial: where the passenger was seated during the crash, and the damages she would have suffered had she worn a seat belt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed seat belt use would have made no difference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action following a jury's assessment of his damages at zero.

He argued that the trial judge's comment that the case was 'quite hopeless', made in the absence of the jury, and her refusal to accommodate the scheduling of his medical witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the trial judge's scheduling decisions were reasonable given counsel's failure to subpoena the witnesses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated the benefits based on a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) report concluding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The applicant disputed the termination, relying on a failed work trial and expert medical opinions indicating he could not sustain employment due to chronic pain.

The arbitrator rejected the DAC's conclusion, finding its process flawed and its functional abilities testing inadequate to measure the applicant's actual ability to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant met the test for complete inability to engage in suitable employment and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits and the expenses of the arbitration.