Jeffery Thomas Arthur Booth

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff’s claim failed because she did not meet the statutory threshold for recovery under the Insurance Act.

The defendants sought substantial costs exceeding $100,000.

The court considered the general rule that costs follow the event under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, but also examined broader considerations including reasonableness, access to justice, settlement dynamics, and the plaintiff’s financial circumstances.

The evidence established that the self-represented plaintiff was impecunious and incapable of paying a significant costs award.

The court concluded that imposing costs would have no practical utility and could discourage unrepresented litigants from pursuing legitimate claims, and therefore declined to award any costs.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a claim for contribution and indemnity arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a pedestrian.

The plaintiffs alleged that an off-duty police officer who observed the pedestrian before the accident owed a duty to intervene or provide assistance and that the police services board was vicariously liable.

The court held that an off-duty officer in the circumstances owed no heightened duty beyond that of a reasonable citizen and that the pedestrian’s conduct did not trigger any obligation under common law policing duties or statutory provisions.

The court found no breach of duty of care and concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim.