Joseph Campisi

Following the settlement of two personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident, the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs and pre-judgment interest (PJI).

The plaintiffs sought over $163,000 in costs, while the defendants argued for a lower amount based on the settlement value of $375,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' extensive bill of costs, finding it disproportionate and offensive to the principle of indemnity given likely contingency fee arrangements.

The court fixed costs at $84,750 (inclusive of HST), representing 20% of the net recovery, and awarded $14,354.75 in PJI, representing half of the plaintiffs' claim, due to the impossibility of apportioning the all-inclusive settlement funds.

The plaintiff, a party under disability who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being struck by a car as a pedestrian, sought court approval of a proposed settlement in his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court reviewed the proposed contingency fee agreement and found it was not reasonable, reducing the fees to 25% for the tort action and 15% for the accident benefits claim.

The court also declined to order the settlement funds be paid as a lump sum, directing counsel to obtain structure options to protect the vulnerable plaintiff.

During a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant moved for a determination that the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function, the statutory threshold required to recover such damages.

After reviewing medical evidence, credibility findings, and the plaintiff’s post‑accident activities, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish a permanent impairment and, in any event, any impairment was neither important nor serious.

The judge also noted the modest jury award for pain and suffering as consistent with the evidentiary record.

The plaintiff was therefore barred from recovering non‑pecuniary damages.