J.C. Rioux

The defendants, Suhaib Alekozai and Behzad Dalf-Ajresh, sought costs following a ten-day jury trial where they were entirely successful on the issues of causation and damages.

The plaintiff, Rhonda Anderson, did not make costs submissions.

The defendants requested costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $72,655.65.

The court, applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested legal fees fair and reasonable given the trial's complexity and the plaintiff's initial claims versus the jury's zero damages award.

However, the court disallowed certain disbursements for lack of explanation or proportionality, ultimately awarding the defendants costs totaling $68,137.68.

This is an appeal from a trial judgment that found a third party, Dennis G. K. Chu, 50% responsible for injuries sustained by Tate Moran in a motor vehicle accident, requiring him to indemnify Ottavio Fabrizi for a settlement.

The trial judge determined that Chu's intentional tortious conduct (road rage) was a "but for" cause of Fabrizi running a red light and colliding with another vehicle.

Chu appealed, arguing errors in the application of the causation test, the failure to consider Fabrizi's negligence as an intervening act, and the misapplication of the "agony of the moment" doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act can apply where one tort is intentional and the other negligent.

The court upheld the trial judge's "but for" causation finding and clarified that the "agony of the moment" doctrine is a defence to the standard of care, not a causation issue, and is not available to the party who created the emergency.

A dispute arose following the termination of a partner’s membership in a law firm regarding amounts owing under a partnership agreement.

The issues concerned the proper calculation of the departing partner’s capital accounts, including goodwill and subsidiary equity, and the value of work in progress and accounts receivable assigned to the departing partner.

The court interpreted the partnership agreement to determine capital entitlements and the deductions applicable to assigned WIP and A/R. After calculating both parties’ entitlements and obligations and applying a limitation period concession, the court concluded that only half of the net amount owing to the departing partner was recoverable.

Judgment was granted for the defendant for the recoverable portion.

A motion was brought to determine whether an insurer or the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was required to respond to a pedestrian’s tort claim arising from a bus accident where the vehicle was not listed under the insured’s policy at the time of the accident.

Although the insurer had paid statutory accident benefits under the priority rules in O. Reg. 283/95, the issue was whether that payment rendered the claimant an insured entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the insurer’s obligation to pay accident benefits arose solely from the statutory priority scheme and not from an existing policy covering the accident.

Entitlement to accident benefits alone did not create insured status for uninsured motorist coverage.

The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage from the insurer.