J. Patrick Brown

Following earlier reasons on the merits, the court addressed the issue of costs arising from an application relating to enforcement of a prior family law judgment.

The successful applicant sought substantial indemnity costs after alleging the respondents engaged in unreasonable conduct that delayed the proceeding and increased litigation expense, including taking an improper position regarding a mortgage and causing unnecessary disclosure and cross‑examination motions.

The respondents filed no responding submissions on costs.

The court found substantial indemnity costs appropriate under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure due to the respondents’ conduct.

Costs of $19,190.23 inclusive of disbursements and HST were awarded to the applicant payable forthwith.

The defendant Ministry moved to strike a negligence claim arising from the death of a child at an unlicensed private-home daycare after the Ministry had received multiple complaints about excessive numbers of children and had sent a warning letter but allegedly failed to follow up.

The court held that on a motion to strike it was required to accept the pleaded facts as true and determine only whether it was plain and obvious the claim could not succeed.

Applying the duty of care framework and authorities on proximity in claims against public actors, the court found it was arguable that the pleaded facts could establish proximity and foreseeability sufficient to support a private law duty of care.

The claim was novel, but the uncertainties could not be resolved at the pleadings stage and required a full record at trial.

Following a jury verdict finding the plaintiff 100% liable for injuries arising from a motor vehicle collision, the successful defendants sought substantial costs.

The court applied the reasonableness and proportionality principles governing costs awards under the Rules of Civil Procedure and appellate guidance.

While the defendants were entitled to partial indemnity costs because they succeeded at trial, the court reduced the quantum significantly due to excessive and duplicative claims, unnecessary prolongation of the proceedings by the defendants, and improper inclusion of certain items such as voluntary mediation costs.

Arguments by the plaintiff that costs should be denied due to hardship, alleged disclosure failures, or Rule 49 offer acceptance were rejected.

The court fixed a reduced costs award reflecting fairness and proportionality.

The accused was convicted of six offences arising from a home invasion robbery committed with a co-accused, including robbery while armed with a shotgun, forcible confinement, possessing a firearm while prohibited, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The accused also was convicted of uttering threats to a corrections officer while in custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to all charges and accepted responsibility.

The sentencing court imposed a 49-month federal penitentiary sentence on the main charges and a concurrent five-month jail sentence on the threatening charge, with a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The court applied Gladue principles and granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The applicant sought judicial review of an appeal order of the Director's Delegate, arguing that the Delegate erred in relying on obiter comments from the Court of Appeal's decision in Liberty Mutual v. Fernandes regarding an insurer's ability to access the dispute resolution process to challenge a CAT DAC decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's comments in Fernandes were an integral part of its decision and constituted binding authority.

The court concluded that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claims in contract and negligence against the City of Toronto and its officials.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, deferring to the trial judge's findings that no contract was formed and that there was no negligence on the part of the City's officials.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a visiting mental health nurse, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

She attempted a graduated return-to-work program coordinated by the insurer, but struggled with physical pain and psychological difficulties.

The insurer terminated her benefits based on assessments indicating she was no longer physically disabled.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was physically capable of performing most tasks, the demanding and stressful nature of her job, which involved treating acutely psychotic patients alone in the community, meant she was substantially disabled by her accident-related depression.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, certain medical and rehabilitation expenses, but denied the applicant's claim for a special award and the insurer's claim for repayment of benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant applied for arbitration.

At a pre-hearing, the insurer requested that the applicant attend independent medical examinations by a psychiatrist and a physiatrist under section 23(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant refused, arguing the requests were unreasonable given previous examinations.

The arbitrator found the requests reasonable because the insurer had little current medical information, the applicant's condition was evolving, and over a year and a half had passed since her last insurer examinations.

The applicant was ordered to attend, and the insurer was ordered to provide the resulting reports at least four weeks before the arbitration hearing.