K. Bruce B. Chambers

Following a partial judgment enforcing a settlement agreement, the court determined the outstanding issues of interest and costs.

The court awarded interest on the settlement funds from the date of acceptance to the date of payment, applying a 19.9% rate (reflecting the plaintiffs' litigation loan) on $200,000 and the Courts of Justice Act rate of 3% on the balance.

The court also fixed the plaintiffs' substantial indemnity costs for the period between the offer and acceptance, reducing the claimed fees slightly, and awarded partial indemnity costs of $11,000 for the hearing.

A personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident in which the defendant crossed the centre line and collided with the plaintiff's dump truck, causing life-altering injuries.

The tort claim against the estate was settled on December 22, 2025 when the defendant accepted the plaintiffs' offer dated June 21, 2021 (with certain paragraphs waived).

The settlement required payment of $1 million plus itemized costs of $195,100, with additional substantial indemnity costs from June 21, 2020 to the date of acceptance to be quantified by agreement or fixed by a judge.

The court confirmed the terms of the accepted offer and found no justification for continued withholding of the settlement funds.

The court reserved on the quantum of post-offer substantial indemnity costs, the availability and rate of interest from the date of settlement until payment, and costs of the hearing.

This decision concerns a threshold motion following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff, Carissa Marcantonio, suffered a "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" as defined by the Insurance Act.

After reviewing the evidence of the plaintiff, her family, friends, treating professionals, and expert witnesses, the court found that the plaintiff suffered a severe, permanent impairment of an important mental or psychological function as a result of the accident, entitling her to general damages as awarded by the jury.

The plaintiff sought an assessment of costs after accepting a Rule 49 offer to settle from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, statutory third parties.

The court had previously awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs for the tort action but denied costs related to the recovery of statutory accident benefits (SABS) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits.

Both parties sought costs for the assessment motion.

The court found that success was divided, as the plaintiff succeeded on the quantum of legal fees for the tort action and disbursements, but failed on SABS and CPP costs.

State Farm failed to resist the quantum of legal fees.

Given the divided success and the complexity of some issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant, a 31-year-old homemaker and mother, suffered serious physical and psychological injuries in a motor vehicle accident.

She applied for non-earner benefits, which the respondent insurer terminated.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test to determine if the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Finding the applicant and her treating practitioners credible, and placing limited weight on the insurer's assessors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's pain and psychological impairments continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, particularly caregiving and homemaking.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the non-earner benefits and interest on overdue amounts.

The plaintiff brought a motion to exclude potential jurors or permit challenges for cause in a civil motor vehicle accident case, arguing that jurors who pay automobile insurance premiums have an inherent conflict of interest.

The court adjourned the motion, directing the plaintiff to serve the Attorney General and inviting The Advocates' Society to intervene as a friend of the court, recognizing the novel and broad implications of the issues raised regarding civil jury selection and impartiality.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff obtained a damages award after the jury found the defendant negligent.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $547,000 or partial indemnity costs of approximately $417,000, while the defendant argued costs should be limited to $100,000 in fees and $50,000 in disbursements.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the guidance from Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, the court considered factors including the importance of the claim, the complexity of the medical evidence, the conduct of the parties at trial, and the proportionality of costs to the damages recovered.

The court concluded that substantial indemnity costs were not justified but that significant partial indemnity costs were appropriate given the complexity of the evidence and trial process.

Following a jury trial where liability was admitted, the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in damages.

However, the court granted the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exceptions under the Insurance Act, resulting in a nil judgment.

Both parties sought costs.

The court held that because the plaintiff obtained a nil judgment, the cost consequences of Rule 49.10 did not apply.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the successful defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $32,500.

Following a motor vehicle collision, the defendants admitted liability and the jury awarded general damages and future health care expenses.

While the jury was deliberating, the defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exception for permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The court accepted that the plaintiff had chronic pain and that his condition was permanent, but held the evidence did not establish a serious impairment causing substantial interference with regular training or most usual activities of daily living.

The plaintiff's ability to complete ESL training and continue household activities undermined the claim that the threshold was met.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the insured was entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits and that CPP child benefits were not deductible from those benefits.

The insured cross-appealed the arbitrator's finding that she was not catastrophically impaired, arguing the arbitrator erred in assessing her psychological whole person impairment at 28%.

The Director's Delegate dismissed both appeals.

The Delegate held that CPP child benefits are not 'disability pension benefits' under the Schedule and are therefore not deductible.

The Delegate also found that the arbitrator's factual findings on causation for the insured's disc herniations and conversion disorder were supported by evidence and reasonable.

Finally, the Delegate upheld the arbitrator's use of a hybrid approach to rate the insured's psychological impairment, finding it was a reasonable exercise of discretion that did not constitute an error of law.

State Farm appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

State Farm sought a stay of the payment orders pending the appeal.

The Director's Delegate found that a complete stay would cause undue hardship to the respondent given the lengthy delays in the proceedings.

However, the Delegate granted a partial stay limited to the extent of Canada Pension Plan child benefits received by the respondent, as the deductibility of those benefits raised a legitimate and substantive question of law.

Following an appeal that set aside an order extending limitation periods but adjourned the issues to trial, all parties sought costs.

The Court of Appeal determined that the respondents were substantially successful because they defeated the appellants' motion for summary judgment and maintained their position that the limitation issues should be decided at trial.

The respondents were awarded costs of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The deceased was struck and killed by two motorists while walking on a highway after becoming intoxicated at a college event.

The deceased's family commenced an action under the Family Law Act more than three years after the accident.

The motion judge extended the two-year limitation period under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act and applied the discoverability rule.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeal, holding that the plaintiffs' unawareness of the limitation period did not postpone it, and that whether the requirements of s. 2(8) and the discoverability rule were met should be determined at trial rather than on a motion.