Joseph M. Dillon

This decision addresses a costs motion arising from two guardianship applications that became moot upon the death of the incapable person.

The applicant sister and respondent brother, who were in a bitter dispute over their late father's guardianship, sought costs from each other.

The court found that the applicant was motivated by her father's best interests and did not act unreasonably to cause unnecessary costs, thus dismissing the respondent's claim for substantial indemnity costs against her.

However, the court also found no principled basis to award the applicant her costs, noting that neither party was entirely blameless and the underlying issues were not judicially determined.

Ultimately, no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant, a New York resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

The respondent insurer paid New York no-fault benefits but failed to advise the applicant of her right to claim more generous Ontario statutory accident benefits.

Years later, the applicant sought retroactive Ontario benefits.

The insurer argued the claim was time-barred and that the applicant had elected New York benefits.

The arbitrator held that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay because the insurer breached its statutory duty to provide information about Ontario benefits.

The arbitrator found no valid election was made and the insurer was bound by its Power of Attorney and Undertaking to provide the more generous Ontario benefits.

The insurer was permitted to set off the New York benefits already paid but was statute-barred from claiming an alleged overpayment.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The insurer sought dismissal of the claims and repayment of benefits paid, relying on a civil jury finding that the applicant was not in the vehicle at the time of the collision.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims and ordered her to repay $93,858.04 in income replacement benefits paid directly to her, finding they were obtained through wilful misrepresentation.

The arbitrator declined to order repayment of amounts paid to third-party service providers.

The applicant was also ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses of $9,570.50.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident injured in a bus accident in New York State, brought a motion to affirm the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court.

The defendants, a Michigan trucking company and the estate of its driver, brought a cross-motion to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

While the court found it had jurisdiction simpliciter based on several connecting factors, it granted the defendants' cross-motion and stayed the action, concluding that New York was the more appropriate forum given that the accident occurred there, New York law applied, and 35 other passengers had already commenced actions in New York.

The appellant suffered a severe brain injury after being assaulted by an intoxicated patron outside a pub.

He sued the patron and the pub, relying on the civil liability provisions of s. 39 of the Liquor Licence Act.

At trial, the jury found the patron 100% responsible and dismissed the claim against the pub.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing them that liability under s. 39 requires reasonable foreseeability of harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 39 requires a risk assessment and is breached only if a patron is over-served to the point where it is reasonably foreseeable they might injure another person.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the respondent's counsel made a prejudicial jury address.

The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the jury to conclude the respondent steered into the oncoming lane to avoid an unidentified vehicle.

The court also found that a factual error in the respondent's jury address did not prejudice the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict, arguing that evidence regarding a walkway's failure to meet Building Code fire safety requirements was improperly admitted.

The Court of Appeal agreed the evidence was irrelevant but dismissed the appeal, finding its admission caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The trial judge had questioned the value of the evidence in his charge, and the defence's position at trial was that a retaining wall provided safe access, making the walkway a marginal factor.

The appellant, a self-employed life insurance agent, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits.

The dispute centered on whether the commissions he received in the 52 weeks prior to the accident should be treated entirely as income or as a combination of income and a loan under a 'renewal capitalization' plan.

The arbitrator found that the payments were a combination of income and loan, meaning only the earned commission portion should be included in the pre-accident income calculation.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding ample accounting evidence to support the conclusion that the loan portion did not become income until policies were renewed.