A. Kwinter

This costs endorsement followed a four-week jury trial where the plaintiffs received a net award of $191,228.65.

The defendant's pre-trial offer of $250,000 to settle all claims was found to attract Rule 49.10 cost consequences, despite being a lump sum and inseverable offer to multiple plaintiffs, due to the application of s. 62(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court adjusted the defendant's claimed costs downward, particularly for internal counsel's estimated time, to ensure indemnity rather than a windfall.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs up to the offer date, and the defendant from that date forward.

A net payment of $21,923.17 in costs was ordered from the defendant to the plaintiffs.

Prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages was ordered to run until the end of the trial.

Personal injury trial arising from a 2015 motor vehicle accident involving a plaintiff with a prior 2012 collision and earlier mental health history.

The court rejected the defence theory that the plaintiff was malingering or merely misattributing pre-existing impairments, and found that the 2015 accident caused soft tissue injuries, chronic pain, psychological injury, headaches, and cognitive deficits that permanently impaired work and daily functioning.

Applying the but-for causation test and the thin skull rule rather than the crumbling skull principle, the court held that the plaintiff had substantially recovered from the earlier accident but remained vulnerable to more serious consequences from the later collision.

The court awarded general damages, past and future income loss, future care costs, and derivative damages to the family claimant.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle accident action sought an order that their upcoming trial proceed virtually due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a lack of available courtrooms for in-person civil trials.

The defendant opposed, arguing that credibility and demeanor required an in-person hearing.

The court ordered the trial to proceed virtually, finding that a further two-year delay to accommodate an in-person trial was not in the interests of justice and that credibility could be adequately assessed virtually.

The defendant insurer brought a motion under Rule 32 for an order permitting its appraiser and experts to inspect the plaintiffs' property, which had suffered fire damage.

The plaintiffs opposed the timing of the inspection, arguing it should occur after the ongoing appraisal process concluded and that the request was delayed.

The court granted the motion, finding no undue delay and noting that the defendant had not inspected the property since the action commenced.

However, the court prohibited one of the defendant's proposed experts from attending due to allegations that they had previously caused additional damage to the property.

No costs were awarded.

The plaintiffs' home and personal property were damaged by a fire.

They sued their insurer and the restoration contractor for incomplete and deficient repairs, unpaid additional living expenses, and damaged or destroyed personal property.

The insurer alleged the plaintiffs committed fraud in their proofs of loss.

The court found no fraud, holding that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by raising the fraud allegation as a high-handed litigation strategy.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the deficient home repairs, additional living expenses, and lost personal property, along with $100,000 in punitive damages against the insurer.