J. Scarfone

The plaintiffs sued their insurer and its adjuster following a fire loss, seeking additional compensation beyond what was awarded in a statutory appraisal process.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims related to the appraised building and valuable papers losses, and to strike the claims against the adjuster personally.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motions, holding that an umpire's appraisal decision under the Insurance Act is final and binding absent judicial review, and that the adjuster could not be held personally liable as he acted entirely within the scope of his employment.

In a medical malpractice jury trial, the court determined whether long‑term disability (LTD) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits should be deducted from damages for past and future income loss.

The plaintiff suffered a stroke after being discharged from hospital and claimed permanent inability to work.

The court held that CPP disability benefits are not deductible from income loss awards.

However, applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance in IBM Canada Limited v. Waterman, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s employer‑funded LTD benefits functioned as indemnity for wage loss and should be deducted from any jury award to avoid double recovery.

The jury was therefore instructed to deduct LTD payments from both past and future wage loss damages.

Following summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, the court determined costs and interest issues.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs, compensation for his own legal work as a lawyer-litigant, recovery for work performed by a lawyer in his firm, reimbursement of expert fees, and enhanced interest rates.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

A litigant who is represented by counsel is not entitled to recover personal legal fees simply because he is a lawyer, though limited recovery was permitted for work performed by another lawyer in his firm.

The court also allowed certain tax advisory disbursements, disallowed an accountant’s fee, reduced costs due to late filing of submissions, and applied the statutory court rates for pre- and postjudgment interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce an alleged settlement arising from an oral agreement reached during a break in litigation proceedings.

The dispute concerned whether the settlement permitted the purchase of the defendant’s shares through a corporate share redemption rather than a purchase by the individual plaintiffs.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the issue and converted the motion into a summary judgment motion.

After reviewing the surrounding circumstances and draft settlement documents, the court concluded that the parties intended the personal plaintiffs to purchase the shares.

The court declared that a binding settlement existed and ordered enforcement consistent with that interpretation.