David Neill

The plaintiff was injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents and brought actions against both drivers.

The trial judge struck the jury due to the complexity of the plaintiff's medical history and found the plaintiff 100% liable for the first accident, but the defendant Hayik 100% liable for the second.

The trial judge awarded damages and made a Sanderson order requiring Hayik to pay the successful first defendant's costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on striking the jury, liability, and damages, but set aside the Sanderson order, finding that the two actions were independent and the plaintiff had the ability to pay the costs of the unsuccessful action.

The appellants appealed a fact-driven trial decision.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent cross-appealed the disposition of costs, seeking full solicitor and client costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that special circumstances, including the small proportion of the mortgage collection claim relative to the overall litigation, justified the refusal to award full costs.