Jack F. Fitch

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding approximately $186,000 in damages for a motor vehicle accident, significantly less than their claim of over $10 million and the respondent's pre-trial settlement offer of $500,000.

The appellants argued that the jury improperly assessed the plaintiff's credibility through evidence of his criminal record and unlawful conduct, and that the jury was misled on the test for causation and the standard of proof for future damages.

The Court of Appeal rejected all arguments, finding that the trial judge properly exercised her gatekeeping function, correctly charged the jury on credibility and causation, and that the jury's verdict was reasonable.

The appellants recovered nothing after costs were set off.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a trial judgment concerning liability for damages arising from an accident.

The appellants sought to challenge the trial judge's costs award.

The Court of Appeal determined that liability should be apportioned two-thirds to Safranyos and one-third to Hamilton.

The court made a Sanderson order requiring Safranyos to pay one-third of McHugh's costs of trial and appeal, but declined to impose such an order against Hamilton, as Hamilton made no arguments relating to McHugh's liability at trial or on appeal.

A motor vehicle collision occurred at an intersection in Hamilton when a vehicle operated by Ms. Safranyos failed to yield the right-of-way and was struck by a vehicle operated by Mr. McHugh, who had consumed alcohol and was speeding.

The trial judge found all three defendants liable: Ms. Safranyos at 50%, Mr. McHugh at 25%, and the City of Hamilton at 25%.

The City appealed on grounds that the trial judge misapplied the non-repair standard and improperly used adverse inferences.

Mr. McHugh appealed on grounds that the trial judge erred in finding he could have avoided the collision and misused evidence regarding his intoxication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the City's appeal but allowed Mr. McHugh's appeal, finding the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors in her factual findings and legal analysis regarding Mr. McHugh's liability.

The defendant Economical Insurance Group brought a motion to dismiss or stay the plaintiff Luciano Molinaro's action due to his repeated non-compliance with court orders and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, had failed to provide undertakings, attend mediations and pre-trial conferences, and pay costs.

The court, while acknowledging the plaintiff's self-represented status, emphasized the need for fair process and efficient use of court time.

The action was stayed on terms, vacating the scheduled trial date, with the plaintiff given an opportunity to comply with specific conditions (payment of costs, disclosure of information, undertaking to attend future conferences) to have the stay removed.

Failure to comply by September 30, 2017, would allow the defendant to seek dismissal without notice.

Following judgment in a civil action involving abuse of qualified privilege, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff sought full indemnification of legal costs beyond the ordinary costs regime.

The court held that the law of costs is not subsumed within the law of damages and that costs must be fixed under the discretion granted by the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Applying the partial indemnity scale and considering the complexity of the action and counsel’s work, the court fixed costs for fees and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a defamation action arising from a newsletter article authored by a member of the Six Nations elected council and published by the council.

The article suggested that the plaintiff improperly demanded and received more than $200,000 in public funds without authorization or evidence of work performed.

The court found that the statements conveyed the meaning that the plaintiff was dishonest and had taken advantage of a crisis to obtain payment she did not earn.

Although the publication occurred on an occasion of qualified privilege because the author was reporting to community members on financial matters, the privilege was defeated by malice.

The court concluded that the author knew the statements were false and published them to discredit the plaintiff.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff with general damages of $60,000.

Following a trial in which the plaintiff’s claim and related cross-claims were dismissed, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the successful defendant’s bill of costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court scrutinized preparation time, trial attendance, and written submissions, reducing several claimed amounts and rejecting certain disbursements including unexplained agency fees, meal expenses, legal research charges lacking detail, and stationery costs treated as overhead.

The court fixed reduced amounts for several litigation stages and limited disbursements.

Counsel were directed to calculate the final payable costs based on the court’s determinations.