2 total
Successful defendants awarded partial indemnity costs after jury rejected injury claim.
Following a jury verdict finding that a motor vehicle accident did not cause injury to the plaintiff, and dismissal of the action on the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct and a withdrawn Rule 49 offer to settle.
The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because the plaintiffs’ conduct was not reprehensible and the defendants’ offer had been withdrawn prior to trial, removing automatic Rule 49 consequences.
However, the defendants were the successful parties and were entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout, with the court fixing a lump sum award after considering proportionality, trial complexity, and counsel conduct that lengthened the proceeding.
Judicial review allowed; Arbitrator's reasons for awarding accident benefits were adequate and restored.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.
The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.
The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.
The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.
