J. Daniel Dooley

Following a jury trial in a solicitor's negligence action where the plaintiffs were awarded $190,000, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although the plaintiffs beat their offer to settle, the court departed from the prima facie rule of substantial indemnity costs due to the improper conduct of plaintiffs' counsel and the perverse nature of the jury's damages findings.

Applying the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.1, the court significantly reduced the plaintiffs' costs claim from $237,535.25 to $129,316 on a partial indemnity scale.

Following partial judgment in an application concerning whether an easement of necessity existed to access landlocked property, the court addressed costs.

The court had previously determined that an easement of necessity existed over one parcel of land, leaving the precise route of the easement to be determined at trial if the parties could not agree.

The applicant achieved substantial success on the central issue of the existence of the easement.

However, one corporate respondent was entirely successful because no easement was granted over its property.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the applicant against certain respondents while also awarding costs to the successful corporate respondent against the applicant.

The applicant bank, holding a mortgage on a landlocked property, applied for a declaration of an easement of necessity over an adjoining property previously severed by the original owner.

The respondents argued that the landlocked property had water access, which should defeat the claim for an easement of necessity.

The court found that the water access was impractical due to a steep slope, satisfying the modern test of practical necessity.

The court declared an easement of necessity over the adjoining land and directed a trial to determine its precise location.