Kalin Ivanov Stoykov

Following a successful trial in a slip and fall action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found the offer to settle was served six days before trial, missing the mandatory seven-day requirement under Rule 49.10, and thus did not trigger substantial indemnity costs.

The court also found the self-represented corporate defendant's conduct was not abusive or reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $170,000 in fees plus disbursements and HST, along with prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old tenant, tripped and fell on a wooden post protruding from the ground in a poorly lit grassy area at the back of her apartment building.

She sustained a severe fracture to her right arm requiring two surgeries and resulting in permanent impairment.

The court found the defendant landlord liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to maintain the premises and ensure reasonable safety.

The plaintiff was awarded $236,626.36 in total damages, including $150,000 for general damages, despite her pre-existing medical conditions.

The plaintiff's action for damages from a motor vehicle accident was dismissed after a jury award for lost income and general damages was netted to zero due to deductions for income replacement benefits and the statutory deductible.

The defendants, being wholly successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $160,000.

The plaintiff argued costs should be limited to her $100,000 adverse costs insurance policy and that the defendant's settlement offers were unreasonable.

The court found adverse costs insurance irrelevant and the defendant's settlement offers reasonable, fixing costs at $160,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling in a grocery store parking lot.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's expert opinion regarding an unexpected curb height lacked factual foundation because the plaintiff did not provide her own affidavit evidence to support the expert's assumptions about her expectations.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to "lead trump" by not filing direct evidence and found the curb was not a hazard.