Kadey B. J. Schultz

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff Jordan’s claim for fire loss under an insurance policy.

The court rejected the defendants’ request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the circumstances did not justify such an award.

The court fixed costs at $10,000 for each defendant, inclusive of disbursements, emphasizing proportionality and the absence of scandalous or outrageous conduct.

The plaintiffs, John Jordan and William Nielson, sought damages from Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group and Finnegan Insurance Brokers Ltd. regarding a policy of insurance on a hunting camp and outbuildings destroyed by fire in 2018.

The plaintiffs alleged that Finnegan failed in its duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage and acted in bad faith, and that Commonwell improperly closed the file while issues remained.

The defendants moved for non-suit, arguing that replacement insurance was not available for this type of property and that the plaintiffs had been referred to arbitration.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, dismissing the claims against both defendants, finding no credible evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims and that the settlement cheque issued was appropriate.

The appellant, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, appealed an arbitration decision that held it solely liable for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) payments to an injured person, despite Zurich Insurance Company being the actual primary insurer.

The Supreme Court of Canada had previously ruled that Chubb, as the first insurer to receive a misdirected SABS application, was deemed an insurer for the claim.

The Superior Court found that the arbitrator erred by not fully analyzing the interplay between the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 283/95.

The court concluded that both Chubb and Zurich were insurers of equal priority due to the unique circumstances and must share liability 50/50, with each responsible for 2% compound interest for delays attributable to them.

This appeal addressed whether Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on attendant care benefits was included within the statutory maximums under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) for accidents occurring before June 3, 2019.

The appellant (insured) argued that HST should be payable in addition to the maximums, while the respondent (insurer) contended it was part of the maximums.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the relevant SABS provisions were unambiguous and that HST constituted a "reasonable and necessary expense" included within the $6,000 monthly and $1,000,000 total maximums for attendant care benefits.

The court emphasized that the same words in a statute must be given the same meaning throughout.

The respondent sustained serious burns to her lower body when coffee spilled from a cup she ordered at a McDonald's drive-through.

The motion judge determined that the respondent was impaired as a result of an accident as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The appellant insurance company appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the use and operation of the vehicle was a direct cause of the injuries and that the seatbelt restraint increased exposure to the scalding liquid.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.