Kerri Kamra

The successful defendants in a motor vehicle accident action sought an order for priority of payment of their costs before the plaintiffs paid their own lawyers' fees and disbursements, and that these costs be paid from the damages awarded to the adult plaintiffs and costs recovered from the unsuccessful defendant.

The court denied the request, finding no legal basis for such an order where there was no mutuality of debts between the parties for set-off, distinguishing it from solicitor's lien cases where set-off applies between parties to a judgment.

Following a 34-day jury trial for a fatal motor vehicle accident, the court determined several post-verdict issues.

The jury awarded damages to a minor plaintiff who sustained a traumatic brain injury and to his half-sister, while finding the co-defendants not liable.

The court declined to amend the jury's $55,000 award for post-secondary studies, finding it was not a mere clerical error.

The court exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest from the date the insurer had actual knowledge of the claim, despite the lack of formal written notice under the Insurance Act.

A management fee of $30,000 was awarded based on the real and substantial possibility that the minor plaintiff would be found incapable of managing his property upon turning 18.

On costs, the court declined to give weight to the unsuccessful defendant's non-compliant global settlement offer because it failed to allocate amounts among the separately represented plaintiffs.

The unsuccessful defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' partial indemnity costs and the successful defendants' costs up to the date it admitted liability via a Sanderson order.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $1,837,500 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the defendants sought to deduct Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) previously settled by the plaintiff.

The court held that the defendants met the strict burden of proving subject-matter and temporal matching between the jury's future care awards and the SABs settlement categories.

However, the court ruled that the deductible SABs amounts must be reduced by a pro-rata share of the legal fees the plaintiff incurred to obtain the SABs settlement, preventing the tortfeasors from unfairly benefiting from the plaintiff's expense.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $1,837,500 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the court determined whether the defendants could deduct a prior $1,423,323.49 Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) settlement from the tort award.

The court found that the defendants met their burden to show subject matter and temporal matching between the SABs settlement and the jury's awards for future medical/rehabilitation and attendant care needs.

However, the court held that the deductible SABs amounts must be reduced by the legal fees incurred by the plaintiff to obtain the SABs settlement, as well as certain quantifiable expenses incurred after the settlement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking court approval of a settlement involving a minor plaintiff arising from the death of her father in a motor vehicle accident.

The proposed settlement allocated $206,875 to the minor for loss of care, guidance and companionship under the Family Law Act.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable but raised significant concerns regarding counsel’s disclosure and the proposed solicitor‑client fees.

The materials were confusing and inconsistent, and the court concluded the firm had already been adequately compensated through costs recovered from the defendant and premiums charged to other plaintiffs.

The settlement was approved, but no further fees or disbursements were permitted to be deducted from the minor’s portion.