Jane Poproski

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, was injured in British Columbia while driving for an Alberta-based company.

He elected to receive Alberta workers' compensation benefits and subsequently initiated a tort action in Ontario against the defendant, the truck's owner and also an Ontario resident, alleging improper maintenance.

The defendant moved to stay or dismiss the action, arguing it was statute-barred by the plaintiff's election to receive workers' compensation benefits and constituted an abuse of process.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the motion, finding the tort action was statute-barred based on principles of inter-provincial comity and that it represented an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate a matter covered by the workers' compensation scheme and allowed for potential double recovery, thereby circumventing the 'historic trade-off' inherent in such legislation.

The defendants, having successfully dismissed the plaintiff's $5 million conspiracy claim on summary judgment, sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued against costs, citing no reprehensible conduct and challenging the defendants' bill of costs.

The court awarded the defendants $250,000 in substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty, illegality, and conspiracy to be reprehensible and deserving of sanction, particularly given the potential impact on the defendants' reputation and the complexity and duration of the litigation.

The plaintiff, a medical and rehabilitation services provider, sued the defendant insurance company and its employees for conspiracy to cause economic harm, alleging they conspired to deny claims and care plans without due regard to their merits.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiff brought a cross-motion.

The court found no evidence of an agreement between the defendants to harm the plaintiff, noting that the employees were acting within the scope of their employment and could not conspire with their employer.

The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy for a healthcare provider, brought a motion seeking to compel the defendant insurer to produce 33 former employees for examination for discovery prior to the determination of the defendant's summary judgment motion.

The plaintiff also sought the return of $350,000 paid into court as security for costs and an order prohibiting the defendant from bringing further motions.

The court granted the request for discoveries, finding that the parties had previously agreed to them in Minutes of Settlement and that the plaintiff needed the evidence to put its best foot forward on the summary judgment motion.

The requests to reduce security for costs and prohibit further motions were dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a defendant’s motion to strike portions of a claim alleging bad faith and punitive damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought partial indemnity costs totalling $7,994.

The defendant argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be payable in the cause, citing the reasonableness of bringing the motion and the plaintiff’s unsuccessful alternative argument for nunc pro tunc amendments to the pleadings.

The court held that the successful party on a contested motion generally has a reasonable expectation of receiving costs and that the defendant had not established grounds to depart from that principle.

However, the court reduced the claimed amount to reflect time spent on the unsuccessful alternative argument and fixed costs at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and tax.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action for statutory accident benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff sought non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule but had not submitted a timely application for benefits and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of several years.

The court found that the insurer had provided the appropriate accident benefits package and repeatedly advised the plaintiff and his counsel of the need to submit an application.

The evidence demonstrated that no application for benefits was made within the statutory timelines and that the plaintiff lacked any reasonable explanation under the SABS for the delay.

The court held that the insurer suffered prejudice due to the inability to investigate the claim years later and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action for statutory accident benefits as statute‑barred.

The plaintiff sought non‑earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident but did not request mediation until several years after the insurer’s written refusal.

The court held that the insurer’s OCF‑9 form clearly denied the benefit and triggered the two‑year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and the Insurance Act.

Although the plaintiff argued the denial contained a misleading explanation and that she did not understand her entitlement, the court found that once she retained counsel in early 2006 she was deemed to know of the limitation period and her rights.

The mediation request and subsequent claim were therefore well outside the limitation period.

The action and the request to amend the claim to plead negligent misstatement were dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking leave to appeal an earlier order to the Divisional Court, the successful defendant sought costs.

The defendant claimed $4,470.10 on a partial indemnity basis, including fees and disbursements, while the plaintiff proposed an award of $2,000.

Applying the relevant factors under the Rules governing costs, the court found that the docketed hours appeared somewhat excessive and noted that certain claimed disbursements, including a car rental, were inappropriate.

The court exercised its discretion to fix costs in a reduced lump sum amount.