Jae Cho

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought their costs.

The plaintiff agreed that the partial indemnity costs sought by two defendants were reasonable, but objected to the third defendant's request for full indemnity costs.

The court found no reason to award full indemnity costs as the plaintiff had done nothing improper, and awarded partial indemnity costs to all three defendants.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, supported by the co-defendants.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in the defendant's ride-share vehicle.

Relying on GPS data, engineering reports, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical history and statements, the court found the plaintiff's claim lacked credibility.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the alleged accident never occurred and dismissed the action.

Following an eight‑day civil trial in which the defendants were wholly successful, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should not follow the event because the litigation was pursued in the public interest and they were allegedly impecunious.

The court considered Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the circumstances of the dispute, the parties’ reasonable expectations, and the existence of settlement offers.

While acknowledging potential financial hardship and the plaintiffs’ stated public interest motivations, the court found that the defendants were entitled to recover costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in a reduced amount, payable jointly by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

Prisoner passengers injured in a rear-end collision while being transported in a police prisoner transport vehicle sought punitive damages against the police service and related defendants after settling compensatory claims with other parties.

The plaintiffs alleged that the design of the transport vehicle—lacking seat belts, padding, visibility, and communication systems—demonstrated reckless disregard for prisoner safety.

The defendants argued the design reflected industry standards and balanced passenger safety with the need to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-officer violence.

The court held that punitive damages require malicious, high‑handed, or reprehensible conduct warranting denunciation.

Because the vehicle design reflected a rational policing approach supported by industry practice and reasonable debate over competing safety concerns, the conduct did not meet the threshold for punitive damages.