James V. Maloney

Following a ten‑day motor vehicle accident trial in which the plaintiffs’ damages claims were dismissed, the defendant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $250,000.

The defendant relied primarily on prior settlement offers to justify the elevated costs scale.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted because there was no reprehensible conduct and the parties’ settlement positions were reasonable given the contested medical causation and income loss issues.

Exercising discretion under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $170,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted.

The plaintiff claimed damages for pain and suffering, past income loss, and future income loss, alleging the accident caused chronic neck, back, and shoulder pain, as well as carpal tunnel syndrome.

The court found that the carpal tunnel syndrome was not caused by the accident.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages, as the impairments were neither permanent nor serious, relying heavily on medical evidence of reversible muscular imbalance and extensive video surveillance showing the plaintiff engaging in vigorous physical activities.

The claims for past and future income loss were also dismissed, as the plaintiff's decision to leave work was deemed unreasonable and the contingencies for future loss were not established as real and substantial possibilities.

The action was dismissed.

The defendant James Vezina sought costs of $4,171.65 from the co-defendant Economical Mutual Insurance Company after a motion for summary judgment was resolved by late consent.

Although the court noted that an award of $1,000 might have been fair and reasonable given the late consent, the court declined to award any costs.

The court based this decision on the moving party's choice to pursue costs from only one of the consenting parties and the improper disclosure of a prohibited statement made during a pre-trial conference.